Background Facts

The respondent was initially appointed as Junior Scientist-cum Assistant Professor, Microbiology in the University. Later, she was transferred to the vacant sanctioned post of Junior Scientist-cum Assistant Professor under the All India Network Project and Bio-fertilizers in the Department of Microbiology.

The Deputy Registrar (Establishment) of the University issued Office Order under the approval of the competent authority whereby she was transferred to Banana Research Centre, Goraul, Vaishali. She was relieved from the Department of Microbiology. Therefore, the Assistant Professor joined Banana Research Centre, Goraul, Vaishali.

The Professor filed a writ petition challenging the transfer order. It was held by the Single Judge that Vice-Chancellor of the University is not a competent authority under the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University Act, 2016. Therefore, the transfer order was set aside by the Single Judge. The University (appellant) was directed to restore and accept the joining of the respondent on the earlier post of Assistant Professor.

Aggrieved by the same, the University and its Vice Chancellor filed the letters patent appeal before the High Court of Patna.

It was argued by the University that in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act, 2016, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has been held to be the principal executive and academic officer of the University. He was conferred upon with the powers of exercising general supervision and control over the affairs of the University. Further, he can give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University.

It was further submitted that there was no other provision under the 2016 Act or the statute framed thereunder during the relevant time dealing with the matters of transfer of teachers and employees of the University. Therefore, the office order was issued in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act, 2016.

It was submitted that the transfer order was not punitive in nature. It was issued by the order of the Vice-Chancellor in his capacity as principal executive and academic officer. The Vice-Chancellor exercised the powers of general supervision and control over the affairs of the University in the interest of the University and for smooth functioning of Banana Research Centre, Goraul, Vaishali.

Reliance was placed on Section 12(2) of the Act, 2016 which states that:

“The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University.”

It was also submitted that a person aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor shall have the right to appeal against such action before the Board within three months.

It was further submitted that by notification dated 20.12.2025, was published in the Gazette of India by the concerned authorities under the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University. The Vice-Chancellor has been conferred with the power to transfer all types of employees from one place to another within the jurisdiction of the University in the overall interest of the University.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Assistant Professor that Section 12(2) and 12(3) of the Act conferred no general power of transfer. Section 12(3) permits exercise of the powers of the Board of Management only in urgent/immediate situations, subject to the statutory requirements of reporting such exercise of the Board. The University neither pleaded nor disclosed any urgency warranting the transfer, nor was the said transfer reported to the Board of Management in its subsequent meetings.

It was further submitted that the University did not contend before the Single Judge that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised the powers of the Board under Section 12(3). Such a plea cannot be introduced for the first time in the intra court appeal.

It was further submitted that clause 3(7) was inserted in the Statutes of the University which conferred on the Vice-Chancellor the power to transfer employees. If such power had already been existing from before, there was no need of amendment. It was further submitted that the amendment was expressly prospective in nature. The amendment clearly states that it shall take effect from the date of issue of this notification.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that under Section 12(4)(xv) of Statutes, the Board is empowered to delegate any of its powers to the Vice-Chancellor, Dean, Director, Registrar or Controller or such other employees or authorities of the University, or to a committee of appointment as it may deem fit.

It was further observed that the Board has not empowered the Vice-Chancellor the power to transfer employees.

It was noted by the Bench that by notification dated 20.12.2025 signed by the Vice-Chancellor himself and assented to by the Hon'ble Visitor, Section 3(7) was inserted in the Statute. It conferred upon the Vice-Chancellor the power to transfer employees. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor had transferred the Assistant Professor by order dated 18.05.2025.

It was held by the Division Bench that a power which was conferred to the Vice-Chancellor by notification dated 20.12.2025 cannot validate an earlier order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 18.05.2025.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the University was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University & Others vs. Dr. Geeta Kumari

Case No. : Letters Patent Appeal No.1054 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate; Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Vaibhava Veer Shanker, Advocate