JAYA SALOME Vs. TELUGU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The perplexing question raised in this writ petition is whether the so called 'transfer' of the fourth-respondent from the post of Director, Publications Division as a Professor in the Department of Folk Arts in the School of Fine Arts of the first respondent University, i.e., Telugu University, is valid. At that time the petitioner had been the Head of Folk Arts Department as she was the Reader in that Department and there was no Professor. If the appointment by transfer of the fourth respondent as Professor is valid, there can be no doubt that he would be the Head of the Department of Folk Arts replacing the petitioner, as he in fact did after his appointment as Professor. The petitioner's complaint is that but for the transfer of the fourth respondent as Professor she would have continued as the Head of the Department of Folk Arts and aggrieved by the deprivation, she questions the action of the authorities concerned of the first respondent University in effecting the transfer.

(2.) Before grasping the nettle of questions arising for resolution in this writ petition, first the necessary factual back-ground has to be sketched: The petitioner is a post-graduate in Telugu from Sri Venkateswars University. She also acquired M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees from the same University in the years 1988 and 1990 respectively and a post-graduate diploma in Translation from the Andhra University in the year 1982 by pursuing correspondence course for that purpose. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 16-1-1992 of the first respondent calling for applications, among others, for the post of Reader in the Department of Folk Arts in the School of Fine Arts, she applied for the said post The said post was reserved for a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste. She was selected and appointed as reader in the Department of Folk Arts by the first respondent University and she joined service as such on 1-4-1992 and eversince has been working as Reader. She was the only Reader in the Department of Folk Arts and there was no Professor and therefore she was also made Head of the Department of Folk Arts. Under the same advertisement dated 16-1-1992, applications were called for the post of 'Director-cum-Professor' in the publications Division of the first respondent University. The fourth-respondent belongs to B.C.'D' category and while working at that time as Reader in the Department of Folk and Tribal Lore in the School of Literature of the first respondent University, he applied for the said post and was selected and appointed to the said post and he joined on 31-3-1992. The qualifications prescribed for the said post were:

(3.) In the writ petition the petitioner complains mat all of a sudden under the Registrar's communication dated 16-10-1993 the fourth respondent was transferred as Professor to the Folk Arts Department with immediate effect The said communication refers to the note orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 15-10-1993 and states that the fourth respondent, who was working as Professor in the Publications Division of the first respondent University, is transferred to the Department of Folk Arts in the School of Fine Arts in view of the decision to start MA. course in the Department of Folk Arts. The petitioner submits mat in the said communication the post in which the fourth respondent should discharge his duties was not mentioned and she also submits mat to the best of her knowledge and information there was no recommendation to start M.A. course in Folk Arts Department by the Academic Senate and mat there was no recommendation or decision to create a post in the Department of Folk Arts. She further submits that even assuming that such a decision to create a post of Professor in the Department of Folk Arts was taken, the competent authority to make the appointment is the Board of Management after constituting a Selection Committee for that purpose under Statute 5(18)(a) of the First Statutes contained in the Schedule to the Telugu University Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and in accordance with its recommendations. She complains that though the order of transfer did not expressly mention the post in which the fourth respondent should function in the Department of Folk Arts, the third-respondent by his communication dated 27-10-1993 informed her that the fourth respondent joined duty with effect from 25-10-1993 as Head of the Folk Arts Department and requested her to handover charge. She further questions the transfer as illegal and not done in good faith and as vitiated by malice in law. In the circumstances, she seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the appointment of the fourth-respondent as Professor in the Head of Department of Folk Arts in the School of Fine Arts of the first respondent University as illegal and void and mat she should be continued as Head of the Department