JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the Order (Annexure RA) passed on 2Rth July, 1979 by the respondent No. 1 (Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur through its Registrar). In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is convenient to reproduce the impugned order, marked as Annexure RA, as under : "Annexure RA Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya (Establishment Branch) No. 3-11/79-HPKVV (Estt.) 15592-640 dated 28th July, 1979. OFFICE ORDER Consequent upon the selection of Dr. O. P. Awasthi and Dr. B. R. Tripathi as Deans, the Vice-Chancellor, H.P.K.V.V., is pleased to make the following postings/transfers ;— (i) Dr. B. R. Tripathi, Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Soils and Water Management, H. P. K. V. V., Palampur is appointed and posted as Dean, College of Agriculture, Palampur vice Dr. O. P. Awasthi. (ii) Dr. O. P. Awasthi, Prof, and Head, Deptt. of Agronomy and Agrometeorology and acting Dean, College of Agriculture, Palampur is transferred and posted as Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan vice Dr. D. R. Thakur. (iii) Dr. D. R. Thakur, Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan is posted as Dean, Post-Graduate Studies with headquarters at Solan. 2. Dr. B R. Tripathi will take charge of the new post with immediate effect and relieve Dr. O. P. Awasthi to enable him to relieve Dr. D. R. Thakur. ?. All the officers will send a copy of their handing over/taking over charge of their respective post(s) to the Registrar and Comptroller, H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur. 4. Dr. Awasthi will be entitled to T, A./D. A. and joining time as admissible under rules. Sd/- Registrar H. P. Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur." By this Office Order, the petitioner has been ordered to be posted as Dean, Post-graduate Studies with headquarters at Solan. 2. It is desirable to state the facts of the case in brief. The petitioner till the formation of the Himachal Pradesh University, with effect from 22nd July, 1970, was posted as Principal-cum-Joint Director of Agriculture (Research) in Himachal Pradesh Agriculture College and Research Institute, Solan. The said post was advertised and the petitioner appeared before the Union Public Service Commission and was selected and appointed to the said post. The petitioner till the formation of the Himachal Pradesh University, with effect from 22nd July, 1970, was posted as Principal-cum-Joint Director of Agriculture (Research) in Himachal Pradesh Agriculture College and Research Institute, Solan. The said post was advertised and the petitioner appeared before the Union Public Service Commission and was selected and appointed to the said post. The petitioner was on probation for two years, but in the meantime Himachal Pradesh University came into being with effect from 22nd of July, 1970 and the Agriculture College, Solan was transferred to Himachal Pradesh University, The services of the petitioner were also transferred to Himachal Pradesh University and the post of Principal-cum-Joint Director held by the petitioner was designated as Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan. The petitioner continued to work against the said post and was confirmed on 28th March, 1974. Thereafter an Act known as the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya Act, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as Krishi Act) came into force. Under Section 39 of Krishi Act, the petitioner became an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya (hereinafter to be referred as the new University) under the same terms and conditions and with the same rights etc. as would have been admissible to him in the Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioner being a permanent Associate Dean under the Himachal Pradesh University became, by force of law, a permanent Associate Dean under the new University. Under the new University the post of the petitioner was designated as the Dean, Agriculture College, Solan. It has been asserted by the petitioner in his petition that the new University was contemplating the appointment of a Dean of the Post-graduate Studies in the new University. The petitioner has further alleged in the writ petition that he learnt from reliable source on 30th July, 1979 that Dr. O. P. Awasthi was being appointed as the Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan (the post held by the petitioner) and that the petitioner was intended to be appointed as Dean, Post-graduate Studies. As such the petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court directing the respondents not to appoint the petitioner as Dean, Post-graduate Studies in the new University. 3. The reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents and it was contended that the petitioner had been transferred as Dean, Postgraduate Studies with headquarters at Solan in the public interest. 3. The reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents and it was contended that the petitioner had been transferred as Dean, Postgraduate Studies with headquarters at Solan in the public interest. The impugned order, Annexure RA, was also annexed with the reply filed by the respondents. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of section 3b> of Krishi Act. It may be convenient to reproduce section 39 of Krishi Act. The same is reproduced as under; — "39. (1) All teachers, officers and other employees of the Himachal Pradesh University working in the Agricultural Complex holding office as such immediately before the appointed day, shall on and from such day, become the teachers, officers and other employees of the University. (2) Every teacher, officer and other employee of the Himachal Pradesh University working in the Agricultural Complex on and from the appointed day, shall hold his office or service in the University on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, provident fund, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him in the Himachal Pradesh University and continue to do so unless and until his employment in the University is duly terminated or until his remuneration and terms or conditions of service are duly altered by the University : Provided that such inherited employees shall have option to opt for the service conditions as may be offered by the University incorporated under this Act: Provided further that in the event of any dispute or difficulty in the matter of implementation of the provisions of this section the matter shall be referred to the Government whose decision shall be final." It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was holding the post of Dean, College of Agriculture and by appointing him as Dean of Post-graduate Studies, he has been removed from the previous post by an incompetent authority, without affording him any opportunity to defend his cause. The petitioner has also alleged mala fides against respondent No. 2 (Dr. H R. Kalia, Vice-Chancellor) which is said to be the basis for passing the impugned order. The petitioner has also alleged mala fides against respondent No. 2 (Dr. H R. Kalia, Vice-Chancellor) which is said to be the basis for passing the impugned order. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the post of Dean of College and Dean of Postgraduate Studies constitute two separate cadres and are not inter-transferable. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the term "Dean" used in Krishi Act and "statutes of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur" (hereinafter to be referred as the Statutes) framed under Krishi Act, has been used in a generic sense, whereas the Deans of College and Post-graduate Studies are its species. On this basis, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that these two posts also institute a common cadre and the holders of these posts are inter-transferable. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner is entitled to all the protections as contemplated under section 39 of Krishi Act. The allegations of mala fides have been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have been controverted with equal force by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that there has been no violation of the provisions as contained in section 39 of Krishi Act. 5. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on both sides. According to me, the points which arc relevant to be determined in this writ petition are:— (a) Whether the two posts, i. e., the post of Dean of College and that of Dean of Post-graduate Studies, constitute a common cadre and as such the holders of these posts are inter-transferable, in terms of Krishi Act and the Statutes. (b) Whether the so-called transfer/appointment of the petitioner is motivated by mala fides as contended by the petitioner. 6. I shall deal with the first point first. Section 2 (j; of Krishi Act defines the term "Dean" as follows:— "2. (j) "Dean" means the Deans of the Colleges and Dean of Postgraduate Studies/ Under Section 17 of Krishi Act, the officers of the new University have been enumerated. For the sake of ready reference the said section is also reproduced as under ;— "17. Section 2 (j; of Krishi Act defines the term "Dean" as follows:— "2. (j) "Dean" means the Deans of the Colleges and Dean of Postgraduate Studies/ Under Section 17 of Krishi Act, the officers of the new University have been enumerated. For the sake of ready reference the said section is also reproduced as under ;— "17. The following may be the officers of the University, namely;— (i) the Chancellor ; (ii) the Vice-Chancellor ; (iii) the Dean of Post-graduate Studies ; (iv) the Deans of Colleges ; (v) the Director of Research ; (vi) the Director of Agricultural Extension Education ; (vii) the Students Welfare Officer : (viii) the Registrar ; (ix) the Comptroller ; (x) the Estate Officer ; (xi) the Librarian ; and (xii) such other persons in the service of the University as ma> be declared by the Statutes to be officers of the University." Under section 24 of Krishi Act, it is contemplated that each College shall have a Dean who shall be responsible to the Vice-Chancellor for the matters concerning his college and shall also be responsible for the organisation and the conduct of resident instruction of the departments of the college. Further, Krishi Act under section 23 deals with the Dean of Post-graduate Studies and the duties assigned to the said post. It is also desirable to reproduce section 23 of Krishi Act and is reproduced as under:— "23. The Dean of Post-graduate Studies shall have the following duties namely;— (a) to co-ordinate post-graduate studies in all colleges, departments and sections of the University ; (b) to supervise maintenance of records pertaining to postgraduate courses, instructions and students ; (c) to effect general co ordination of postgraduate thesis, research programmes with the on-going programme of the Universitys agricultural research service, through the Director of Agricultural Research." Under section 32 of Krishi Act, it is provided that the following colleges shall be the constituent colleges of the University, i. e.: — (i) the College of Agriculture, Palampur ; (ii) the College of Agriculture, Solan ; and (iii) such other college as may be established by the University after the commencement of this Act ; and (iv) such Central Government institution of agricultural research, technical and extension education in the State of Himachal Pradesh as may desire to be integrated as college of the University. 7. Reference may also be made to the Statutes. 7. Reference may also be made to the Statutes. Statute 3.2 deals with the Dean of College. Under this Statute, the Dean of College is the chief executive officer of the college and is responsible to the Vice-Chancellor for its administration. Under Statute 3.5 the powers and duties of the Dean of Post-graduate Studies have been mentioned. 8. In order to consider the impact of the aforesaid provisions, it may be relevant to consider as to how the appointment to these two posts is made. As pointed out earlier above, under section 17 (iii) the Dean of Post-graduate Studies has been mentioned as one of the officers of the new University, whereas under section 17 (iv) the Deans of Colleges have been referred to as such. Under section 22 of Krishi Act, the appointment of such officer is to be made by the Board on the recommendations of Selection Committee as may be constituted for the purpose under the Statutes. I had put it to the learned counsel for the parties as to whether any appointment to these posts could be made by transfer or by posting straightaway without complying with the conditions contained in section 22 of Krishi Act. No such provision was pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties. The natural and inevitable inference which can be drawn from such a position is that the appointments to these posts can be made only in terms of section 22 of Krishi Act. There is no dispute between the parties that there are presently two Deans of Colleges in the new University, whereas there is only one post of the Dean of Post-graduate Studies in it. If the appointment is to be made in terms of section 12 of Krishi Act, the post of the Dean of Post-graduate Studies can be only filled up by adopting the procedure as contemplated under section 22 of Krishi Act. However, as pointed out above, there are two posts of Deans of Colleges presently in the new University. Such Deans are accordingly inter-transferable. Since the petitioner is only challenging his posting by transfer as the Dean of Post-graduate Studies, it is desirable only to determine whether such a posting by transfer could be ordered as contained in the impugned order, Annexure RA. Such Deans are accordingly inter-transferable. Since the petitioner is only challenging his posting by transfer as the Dean of Post-graduate Studies, it is desirable only to determine whether such a posting by transfer could be ordered as contained in the impugned order, Annexure RA. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to section 2 of Krishi Act whereunder different terms have been defined. He has pointedly drawn my attention to the opening words of this section which may be relevantly reproduced as under: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— ………………………… ………………………….” I feel that the use of this phrase is not without meaning. Though under Section 2 (j) the term "Dean" has been defined jointly, but it has to be read with reference to the context. The duties and responsibilities of the two posts appear to be different to a large extent. Without going into the question whether the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies is a higher post or otherwise as compared to the Deans of Colleges, I am of the view that the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies has to be filled up in compliance with the provision contained under section 22 of Krishi Act. This view is supported for the reason that under section 17 of Krishi Act the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies has been mentioned in a separate category than to the category of Deans of Colleges. In case both these posts were in the same cadre, there was no necessity to put them into two different categories under this section. 9. The question then arises whether the Vice-Chancellor in terms of Section 20 (0 of Krishi Act read with Statute 3.1 (2) (iv) has the power to transfer the petitioner from the post of Dean of the College to the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies. Section 20 (2) of Krishi Act says that the Vice-Chancellor shall exercise control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the discipline and order in the University. Under Statute 3.1 (2) (iv) the Vice-Chancellor in addition to the powers and duties under section 20 of Krishi Act, has got the power to transfer personnel from one post to another in the interest of the University without adversely affecting the service conditions. Under Statute 3.1 (2) (iv) the Vice-Chancellor in addition to the powers and duties under section 20 of Krishi Act, has got the power to transfer personnel from one post to another in the interest of the University without adversely affecting the service conditions. It may be pointed out that the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies was not filled up and was lying vacant till the impugned order was passed. In fact, no appointment in terms of section 22 of Krishi Act has been made so far of the Dean of Post-graduate Studies. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the duties and functions of these two posts are different. He has drawn my attention to the Statute 2.4 (4) (i) wherein it is provided that each Faculty shall be constituted of the personnel named therein of which the Dean of the College is to be ex-officio Chairman. The Dean of Postgraduate Studies, on the contrary, is not to be the Chairman of a Faculty. My attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the parties to some other provisions in the Statutes relating to the duties and functions of the two posts. I am of the view that the duties and functions of the two posts are apparently different. It is not necessary for me to refer to all those provisions. As pointed out earlier above, the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies has not been filled up so far. The said post can only be filled up in compliance with the provision of section 22 of Krishi Act. In the process of this appointment, normally applications shall have to be invited and the appointment shall be made by the Board on the recommendations of the Selection Committee as may be constituted for the purpose under the Statutes. The appointment of the Dean of Post-graduate Studies, according to me, can only be made in compliance with t fate provision of section 22 of Krishi Act and not by transfer. In fact, the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Dean of College to the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies is a transfer outside the cadre which varies his conditions of service. In this way, the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Dean of College amounts to his removal from this post. In fact, the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Dean of College to the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies is a transfer outside the cadre which varies his conditions of service. In this way, the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Dean of College amounts to his removal from this post. The respondent No. 1 or its authorities have no power to force the petitioner to work as the Dean of Post-graduate Studies on the basis of the order of transfer. As such the order as contained in Annexure RA is void and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for, the respondents has contended that the petitioner is a senior-most Dean and he is being sent to a higher post by transfer. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the qualifications for the appointment to the post of Dean of College and that of Dean of Post-graduate Studies are l,e same as also their scales of pay. As such, according to the learned counsel here is nothing wrong in ordering the transfer of the petitioner. In this wrtit petition, the dispute is not regarding the seniority, scales of pay and qualifications etc., but the simple question is whether the impugned order can be sustained. Since the transfer is ordered outside the cadre, the same cannot be maintained even if the two posts carry the same scales of pay etc. 10. The next point which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of mala fides against respondent No. 2. Since I have already held that the impugned order being void cannot be sustained, it may not be necessary to go into the question of mala fides. Since the learned counsel for the parties have argued at length this aspect of the matter as well, it may be desirable to go into that question Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition contain the allegations constituting mala fides alleged by the petitioner against respondent No. 2. The said paragraphs may be reproduced which read as under;— "Paragraph 13 : That there is reason for the respondent No. 2 to have acted to the detrimental interests of the petitioner, because the petitioner had been requesting the authorities that - Dr. Kaiia may kindly be asked not to act against the rules, regulations and procedural norms. The said paragraphs may be reproduced which read as under;— "Paragraph 13 : That there is reason for the respondent No. 2 to have acted to the detrimental interests of the petitioner, because the petitioner had been requesting the authorities that - Dr. Kaiia may kindly be asked not to act against the rules, regulations and procedural norms. The petitioner first of all brought the facts to the notice of the respondent No. 2 but without an} success and then thereafter he represented to the Chancellor (the Governor), the Chief Minister vide his memo of 7th June, 1979, making a detailed case of the actions of the respondent No. 2. He wrote; The above are only a few instances of the actions, intentions, omissions and commissions of Dr. Kalia to liquidate the Solan campus. To achieve this, he is adopting various ways and means to impotate or even eliminate the Dean of the campus from the scene. In view of the above mentioned attitude of Dr. Kalia to reduce this campus to nothingness, it is impervative to provide necessary legal safeguards by making suitable amendments in the Act in the interest of the Pradesh. That memo is placed on the file as Annexure E. The matter received the attention of the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh and the Chief Minister directed the Agricultural Production Commissioner to look into the matter. The memo to this effect is placed on the file as Annexure F." "Paragraph 14: That the petitioner further submits that he has been nominated as Member of the Board of Management by virtue of his being the Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan. The Board of Management is the highest policy making authority of the University. The nomination of the petitioner to be one of the Members of the Board is not to the liking of the respondent No. 2 and that may be one of the reasons that the petitioner is intended to be appointed as Dean, Post-Graduate Studies and that consideration must have actuated the respondent No. 2 to take the impending action." Annexure RC is a letter dated July 1 , 1979 addressed by respondent No. 2 to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh and annexure RB is a letter addressed to the Chancellor. The said communications contain a full criticism of the petitioner and be treated as a part of this judgment. The said communications contain a full criticism of the petitioner and be treated as a part of this judgment. I do not think it desirable to discuss at length the contents of these communications, but I am fully satisfied that the respondent No. 2 was biased against the petitioner. By issuing the impugned order, Annexure RA, dated 28th July, 1979 soon after the aforesaid communications it appears to be a colourable exercise of power by respondent No. 2. Similarly Annexures G and G-l arc the communications which may have in a way formed the background of the hostility between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. I do not feel inclined to discuss at length the material on record highlighting this aspect of the matter, but I have taken note of it. I am convinced that the respondent No. 2 was biased against the petitioner and wanted to dislodge him from the post of Dean of College at Solan. As such the action of respondent No. 2 smacks of mala fides. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 in their communications to the Chancellor and the Chief Minister have been making allegations and counter-allegations against each other. A bare perusal of Annexure RC reflects the thinking of the mind of respondent No. 2 in which, besides other matters, the petitioner had been branded as a person incapable to manage the affairs of the College. As such the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent No. 2 has been good enough to show favour to the petitioner by appointing him to a superior post with higher responsibilities, appears to be an after-thought. Accordingly I am of the opinion that the action of respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order, Annexure RA, smacks of mala fides. 11. No other point was urged before me. 12. In view of my above discussion, the order of transfer of the petitioner, Annexure RA, cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work as a Dean of College. In case he is desired to be transferred, he can only be transferred as a Dean of College. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Petition allowed