ASHOK KUMAR YADAV Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Senior Scientist in the Scheme C(a) Agro-3 Plan (Agri) in the Department of Agronomy, Hisar, challenges the order issued on 05.12.2011 transferring the petitioner to Scheme C(b)RSK-18 ICAR at Uchani, Karnal. The order of transfer, according to the petitioner, is not on grounds of administrative exigency but on account of bias against the petitioner and to accommodate favourably the 4 th respondent-R.K. Pannu, who was a close relative of the Vice Chancellor-1 st respondent. The petitioner has set out the credentials in the field of research that he has had and his doctorate having been secured in U.K. in Agronomy and made the Director of RSD Seed Farm on 01.09.2008.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that he had been promoted as Class I officer in the Department of Agronomy in February, 1995, further promoted as a Professor in February, 2003. The 4 th respondent-R.K Pannu also joined the Department of Agronomy as a Junior Scientist in July, 1983 and promoted as Professor in the Department in July, 2004. In terms of his entry as a Junior Scientist as well as in the posting as a Senior Scientist, the 4 th respondent was junior to the petitioner. During his posting as a Senior Scientist, the petitioner had been assigned the charge of Director, RDS Seed Farm on 01.09.2008 and thanks to his stewardship, the farm which was running at loss, has turned the corner. The petitioner had been relieved, however, from the charge of the Seed Farm by Sh. RPS Kharab on 02.04.2011 by virtue of the fact that the said person was a close relative of Vice Chancellor. The harassmment to the petitioner could also been seen by the fact during the absence of Head of the Department, the practice have always been to assign the duty to the seniormost Professor/Scientist with the Department as indeed provided for under sub-clause (2) of the Statutes. This practice of assigning the Head of the Department to senior most Professor could be evident on endorsement recorded by the Registrar on 21.11.1998. This post was denied to the petitioner for extraneous considerations. In violation of usual practice, the 4 th respondent, who was junior to the petitioner had been nominated as the alternative Head of the Department and as soon as the petitioner came to know about it, he had made a representation on 29.06.2011 pointing out to the practice and staking his claim. The petitioner approached to them by means of representation setting out the details of past practice when one R.S. Malik had been the Scheme Incharge, who was the senior most Scientist. Generally, DAC is constituted for guiding the Head of the Department on all aspects of academic activity but this has been discontinued in the Department of Agronomy. When the petitioner was, therefore, communicating the Vice Chancellor about the injustice caused to him by not giving to him the responsibility of alternative HOD, the 1 st respondent has been infuriated to issue the impugned order of transfer.

(3.) The order of transfer itself had not been communicated to him and the manner in which it had been passed would itself show that it was biased and to spite the representation which he has been making for not assigning to him the responsibility of HoD. The petitioner will have the following objections:-