@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners, who are non-teaching staff working in Dr. S.K. Sinha Women''s College, Motihari being aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.2004 contained in Memo No. B/36 issued by the Proctor observing that the Vice Chancellor has proposed transfer of the petitioners and one Rajendra Prasad, are before this Court submitting, inter alia, that the Vice Chancellor has no powers under the Act to transfer Class III employees of the constituent college from one college to another constituent college on the ground that there is no common seniority list/cadre and if one is transferred from one place to another their seniority are likely to be affected. The submissions are that the respondents under an ill advice are trying to take advantage of certain observations made in C.W.J.C. No. 9801/2002 (Dr. Atma Prasad vs. The Chancellor) and without any authority of law are transferring the petitioners.
2. During course of the arguments strong reliance was placed upon judgments of this Court in the matter of Ram Subhag Singh vs. Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 4486/1994, decided on 30.9.1994), Shatrughan Prasad Mishra vs. Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 3386 of 1996, decided on 28.10.1997),
3. The respondents in their counter have submitted that a fair perusal and understanding of the judgment of Dr. Atma Ram''s case (supra) would make it clear that Dr. Atma Ram was transferred and thereafter he came to this Court and during the course of hearing certain teaching staff made an application for intervention; allegations and counter-allegations were made and reports of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police were brought on the record to show and suggest that not only the petitioner but members of teaching and non-teaching staff were involved in nefarious activities. It is submitted that in view of these facts when this Court observed that the respondents would be free to take an action against the other side then the respondent-Vice Chancellor under the authority conferred by the High Court would be entitled to take an action against all such erring staff who were named in the reports and whose transfer were necessitated because of their conduct.
4. So far as the judgments of this Court are concerned it is submitted that the said judgments require reconsideration by this Court because the provisions of the Act would show that the Vice Chancellor under the authority of law and even other wise is entitled to take an action. It is submitted that not only the Vice Chancellor was authorised by the High Court after appreciating the legal position to take an action against the erring non-teaching staff but if the law permits him under which ho holds the authority then his action would be absolutely justified.
5. The endeavor of the learned counsel for the respondents was to contend that the earlier judgments, Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court are contrary to law, therefore, the matter deserves to be referred to a larger Bench.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through all the judgments I must immediately observe that three Single Judges-two in relation to the very same University and the 3rd in relation to L.N. Mithila University while a Division Bench in matter of B.N. Mandal University have observed that the Vice Chancellor would have no right to transfer the non-teaching staff, I am not required to refer the matter to the larger Bench. This Court must adopt the ratio of those cases wherein it has been observed that in absence of a common cadre of Class ill employees or a common seniority list of all the constituent colleges the seniority of a particular person would be adversely affected and they are likely to loose their chances of promotion in the Colleges where they have been so appointed. Following the earlier judgments I hold that the order contained in Annexure-4 issued by the Proctor under the authority of the Vice Chancellor is not in accordance with law; it runs contrary to the decisions given by this Court because the Vice Chancellor has no authority to issue such orders of transfer.
7. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-4, Memo No. B/36 dated 8.1.2004 issued under the signatures of the Proctor and the directions made by the Vice Chancellor are hereby quashed. If the petitioners have been relieved to join their posts either to L.N. College, Bhagwanpur or R.P.S. College, Jaintpur then they would immediately be relieved from those Colleges and would be allowed to join Dr. S.K. Sinha Women''s College, Motihari. On Petitioners'' making an application to the Principal, Dr. S.K. Sinha Women''s College, Motihari they would be allowed to join by the Principal without delay observing the orders of this Court, even without awaiting further instructions either from the Vice Chancellor or any other authority. The petition is allowed.
