JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—This Letters Patent appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 22nd May, 1980, passed by a Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition 177 of 1979, by which the order of transfer of Dr. D. R. Thakur, writ-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1), dated 28th July, 1979 (Annexure RA to the writ petition) was quashed and the appellants were directed to allow Dr. D. R. Thakur to work as a Dean of the College. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was offered appointment to the post of Principal-cum Joint Director of Agriculture (Research) in the senior scale of pay by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Department of Agriculture), vide letter, dated 9th January, 1970 (Annexure A to the writ petition). In pursuance to this offer, respondent No. 1, took charge of the post of Principal-cum-Joint Director of Agriculture (Research) Himachal Pradesh Agriculture College and Research Institute, Solan, on 12th January, 1970 (fore-noon) vide Annexure B. On 22nd July, 1970, the Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter called the University) was formed and the Agriculture College, Solan, was transferred to it, with the result that the services of the respondent No. 1 were also transferred to the University and the post held by him was designated as Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan. The respondent No. 1 was confirmed as an Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan, vide letter, dated 28th March, 1974 (Annexure C) and he continued to serve as such. Thereafter an Act known as the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya Act, 1978 (hereinafter shortly called the Krishi Act) came into force and by virtue of the provisions of section 39 thereof all the employees of the University became the employees of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur (hereinafter referred to as the new University) under the same terms and conditions and with the same rights, etc. as would have been admissible in the University. The respondent No. 1, as such became a permanent Associate Dean under the new University and his post thereafter seems to have been designated as Dean, Agriculture College, Solan. as would have been admissible in the University. The respondent No. 1, as such became a permanent Associate Dean under the new University and his post thereafter seems to have been designated as Dean, Agriculture College, Solan. The respondent No. 1 in his writ petition alleged that he was posted and employed as a Dean, Agriculture College, Solan, till the date of the filing of the writ petition, i. e., 31st July, 1979, and that the new University was considering the filling of the post of Dean, Post-graduate Studies, in the new University and that he is likely to receive orders of his appointment as Dean, Post-graduate Studies, and thereby he is likely to be removed from his present post of Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan. It was also alleged by respondent No. 1 that he was being appointed to a post which was in a different cadre and that such an action of the new University is not permissible. It was further alleged that the Vice-Chancellor of the new University, Dr. H. R. Kalia (appellant No. 2) is not competent to make the appointment for the post of Dean, Post-graduate Studies, and it is only the Board of Management of the new University through its Registrar, which is competent to make such an appointment. Respondent No. 1 also alleged mala fides against Dr. H. R. Kalia, and submitted that due to this malice of Dr. H. R. Kalia, the respondent No. 1 is being harassed. In view of these facts, the respondent No. 1 had prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued against the appellants asking them not to remove him from the post of Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan. 3. The writ petition was contested by the appellants. It was averred in the return that vide office order, dated 28th July, 1979 (Annexure RA) the order regarding the posting of respondent No. 1 as Dean, Post-graduate Studies, with headquarters at Solan has already been passed and that Dr. O. P. Awasthy has already been transferred and posted as Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan, vice respondent No. 1. It was further alleged in the return that the posting of respondent No. 1 as Dean of Post-graduate Studies in the new University is quite legal and proper, and that Dr. O. P. Awasthy has already been transferred and posted as Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan, vice respondent No. 1. It was further alleged in the return that the posting of respondent No. 1 as Dean of Post-graduate Studies in the new University is quite legal and proper, and that Dr. H. R. Kalia being the Vice-Chancellor had the power to transfer respondent No. 1 from one post to another and that this transfer has been done in the public interest. It was also averred that Dr. O. P. Awasthy is a necessary party to the writ petition and that the matter in dispute is only an incident of service and purely of an administrative nature and as such the High Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction. It was further averred that there is no violation of the Act or the Statutes, and no failure of justice has taken place, and, in fact, the posts of Dean, Post-graduate Studies and the Deans of Colleges are inter-changeable and inter-transferable posts. It was also alleged that there are no different cadres for the two above alleged posts and that they, in fact, belong to the same cadre. 4. The learned Single Judge vide his order, dated 22nd May, 1980, after referring to the various sections of the Krishi Act and the Statutes framed under the Krishi Act, gave a finding that the transfer of respondent No. 1 from the post of Dean, College of Agriculture, Solan, to that of Dean, Post-graduate Studies at Solan, is not permissible because the two posts belong to different cadres and are not inter-changeable or inter-transferable, and that under section 22 of the Krishi Act the post of Dean, Post-graduate Studies, can be made by following the provisions of section 22 only and not by transfer. With these findings, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the order contained in Annexure RA is void because the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Dean, Post-graduate Studies is not in consonance with section 22, and as such he held that the order contained in Annexure RA, is liable to be quashed. On the question of mala fides also the learned Judge held that the order contained in Annexure RA is mala fide and as such is liable to be quashed. On the question of mala fides also the learned Judge held that the order contained in Annexure RA is mala fide and as such is liable to be quashed. On these findings the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition of respondent No. 1 and quashed the order of transfer of respondent No. 1, i. e., Annexure RA. 5. Aggrieved from this order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants (who were respondents in the writ petition) have come up in appeal and have challenged the findings of the learned Single Judge. 6. We have heard Shri P. N. Nag, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri Inder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 at great length. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the posts of Dean of the College and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies are, in fact, inter-changeable and inter-transferable, and to substantiate his contentions he drew our attention to the provisions contained in various sections of the Krishi Act and the Statutes made under this Act. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that both these posts are defined by the word Dean which is a generic term, as given in section 2 (j) of the Krishi Act, and that under Statutes 3.2 and 3.5, both these posts carry the same salary and other amenities. It was further contended by him that under Statute 3.11, the appointment of both the Deans, are to be made under the provisions of Statute 3.12 and that the qualifications for the posts of Dean of College and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies are the same and the composition of selection committee for both the posts is also the same. The learned counsel further contended that the Vice-Chancellor had absolute powers under Statute 3.1 (2) (iv) to transfer respondent No. 1 in the interest of the New University without adversely affecting the service conditions. It was also contended that the service conditions of respondent No. 1 are not at all affected adversely and that the Vice-Chancellor had transferred him after taking into consideration the interest of the New University. It was further contended that the post of Dean, Post-graduate Studies, is in no way inferior to the post of Deans of Colleges and that it is purely an administrative matter and no failure of justice has been caused to respondent No. 1. It was further contended that the post of Dean, Post-graduate Studies, is in no way inferior to the post of Deans of Colleges and that it is purely an administrative matter and no failure of justice has been caused to respondent No. 1. It was further contended that section 22 of the Krishi Act has no application in the present case because this section can only be made applicable to a new appointment and has no application for the purposes of transferring a man from one post to another. The learned counsel further contended that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is not at all mala fide and that the impugned order had been passed by him, after taking into consideration the interest of the new University. On these contentions it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order, Annexure RA, is quite legal and valid and that the approach of the learned Single Judge is wrong. 8. Shri Inder Singh learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that the new University cannot change the conditions of service of respondent No. 1 and that one of the conditions of service of respondent No. 1 was that he was to hold the post of a Dean of the College. It was further contended by him that the post of Dean of a College is quite distinct from the post of Dean, Post-graduate Studies, and that the two posts are not inter changeable. To substantiate this contention he has referred to the provisions of sections 22, 23, 24 and 39 of the Krishi Act and the Statutes 2.3 (3), 2.4 (4), 3.2 and 3.5. He has also contended that if a person is appointed to a particular post then he cannot be transferred to another post and that if he is transferred to some other post then this will be against the conditions of service and it will tentamount to transferring a person outside the cadre which is illegal and not permissible. It was also contended that the duties and the functions which a person is to discharge in a certain office cannot be changed under the garb of transfer and that the duties and functions of the two posts, i. e., the Dean of the College and the Dean of Post graduate Studies are quite distinct. It was also contended that the duties and the functions which a person is to discharge in a certain office cannot be changed under the garb of transfer and that the duties and functions of the two posts, i. e., the Dean of the College and the Dean of Post graduate Studies are quite distinct. On the basis of the above contentions he further argued that the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies could only be filled under the provisions of section 22 of the Krishi Act and that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to appoint respondent No. 1 as the Dean of Post-graduate Studies. On the question of mala fides, it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is mala fide, that the same is disclosed from the two documents, Annexures RB and RC, which have been sent as replies by the Vice-Chancellor to the Chancellor and the Chief Minister respectively and that the Vice-Chancellor was biased against respondent No. 1. He also supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that ths order contained in Annexure RA has rightly been quashed by the learned Single Judge. 9. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case and the relevant provisions of the Krishi Act and the Statutes. 10. According to the definition of the word "Dean- as given in section 2 (j) of the Krishi Act, "Dean- means the Deans of the Colleges and Dean of Post-graduate Studies. In this section the Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies have not been defined separately and both the posts are covered by one single term "Dean". 11. In section 17 of the Krishi Act, the officers of the new University have been enumerated as follows;— "(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 may be declared by the Statutes to be officers of the University." 12. Section 22 of the Krishi Act, lays down the general terms and conditions of other officers of the new University and it reads as follows: "22, (1) An officer of the University referred to in clauses (iii) to (xii) of section 17 shall be a whole time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Board on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, as may be constituted for the purpose under the Statutes. (2) The salary and allowances and other conditions of service of such an officer shall be as may be prescribed by the Statutes." 13. Similarly section 23 of the Krishi Act pertains to the duties of the Dean of Post-graduate Studies and section 24 of the Krishi Act lays down the responsibilities of the Deans of the Colleges. 14. Section 32 of the Krishi Act deals with the constituent colleges of the new University and reads as follows; "32. (1) The following colleges shall be the constituent colleges of the University ;— (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. (2) Every college shall comprise of such departments as may be prescribed and each department shall be assigned such subjects of study as the Academic Council may deem fit. (3) There shall be a Head of each Department who shall be responsible to the Dean for resident instruction, to the Director of Research for research, and to the Director of Extension Education for extension education. (4) The Head of each Department shall be selected by the Vice-Chancellor and appointed by him with the approval of the Board. (5) The duties, powers and functions of the Heads of Department shall be such as may be prescribed.” The Statutes of the new University have also been framed under the Krishi Act and the relevant provisions of the Statutes for the purposes of deciding the present appeal are quoted below ; "3.1. (5) The duties, powers and functions of the Heads of Department shall be such as may be prescribed.” The Statutes of the new University have also been framed under the Krishi Act and the relevant provisions of the Statutes for the purposes of deciding the present appeal are quoted below ; "3.1. (2) In addition to the powers and duties mentioned in section 20 of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall exercise the following powers: (i) to (iii) xxx xxx (iv) to transfer personnel from one post to another in the interest of the University without adversely affecting the service conditions ; (v) and (vi) xxx xxx 3.2. Deans of the Colleges;—(1) The Dean of the College shall receive a salary in the scale of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500 plus rent free unfurnished residential accommodation at the campus of the University or in lieu thereof an allowance of Rs. 25/- per month. (2) to (4) xxx xxx 3.5. Dean of Post-Graduate Studies;—(I) The Dean of Postgraduate Studies shall receive a salary in the scale of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500 plus rent free unfurnisned residential accommodation at the campus of the University or in lieu thereof an allowance of Rs. 250/- per month. (2) (i) to (vi) xxx xxx " 15. Statute 3.11 sets out the procedure for selection which is to be adopted for appointment of all the Deans. In this Statute, the Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies are not mentioned separately, meaning thereby that the same procedure is to be followed for the appointment of both classes of Deans. 16. Statute 3.12 deals with the qualifications for appointment to the posts of Deans, Director of Research, Director of Agricultural Extension Education, Students Welfare Officer, Librarian, Estate Officer, Registrar and Comptroller and the composition of the selection committee for these posts. In this table the Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies are not given separately, but they are termed in the same post as Deans. The relevant extract is as follows: "3.12. The qualifications for appointment to the post of Deans, Director of Research, Director of Agricultural Extension, Education, Students Welfare Officer, Librarian, Estate Officer, Registrar and Comptroller, the composition of Selection Committee shall be as given in the following table :— SI. No. 1 Name of the post 2 Qualifications 3 Composition of Selection Committee 41. Deans (1) Ph. The qualifications for appointment to the post of Deans, Director of Research, Director of Agricultural Extension, Education, Students Welfare Officer, Librarian, Estate Officer, Registrar and Comptroller, the composition of Selection Committee shall be as given in the following table :— SI. No. 1 Name of the post 2 Qualifications 3 Composition of Selection Committee 41. Deans (1) Ph. D. Degree or its equivalent in any of the Sciences relating to Agriculture, Horticulture and Animal Science. (1) Vice-Chancellor Chairman. (2) 10 years teaching/ research experience in a relevant field out of which at least 5 years experience should be as Professor or equivalent rank. (2) 3 Scientists or Educationists with experience of work in scientific, educational or administrative capacity from outside the University, two to be nominated by the Chancellor and one to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor Members. i [3) A significant contri- i but ion or accomplishment, in the field of Research/Education as evidenced by Publications. (3) One nominee of the ICAR Member. I ;4) Good knowledge of educational systems prevalent in the world. 2 to 8 xxx xxx 17. A perusal of the above provisions as contained in the Krishi Act and the Statutes, clearly shows that for the purpose of selection, appointment, salary and other amenities etc., the posts of Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies are at the same level. The Act also does not make any distinction in the definition clause for the posts of Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies. The salary and other facilities as given to both the Deans are same as have been enumerated in Statutes 3.2 and 3.5. Similarly the qualifications and the composition of the selection committee for the posts of both the Deans are the same. Hence the reading of the different sections of the Krishi Act and the Statutes under the Act, clearly go to show that a person is only to be appointed as a Dean and he can be put incharge as the Deans of the Colleges or the Dean of the Post-graduate Studies, and that the post of Dean include both the posts and the term Dean is used in the Act as generic term. So far as the provisions of section 22 of the Krishi Act are concerned, the same apply for appointment of any officer mentioned in clauses (iii) to (xii) of section 17 of the Krishi Act. It clearly envisages the first appointment of the person concerned, meaning thereby that if a person is already serving as a Dean in the University then the provisions of section 22 will have no applicability. 18. Under Statute 3.1 (2) (iv), the Vice-Chancellor has been given powers to transfer personnel from one post to another in the interest of the new University without adversely affecting the service conditions. 19. We have already referred to the provisions of the Statutes to show that the scale of pay and other amenities provided to the Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies are identical, meaning thereby that the service conditions for both the posts are the same. The principal criterion to determine the rank of a post is the pay or the scale of pay of a post. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the conditions of service of respondent No. 1 are being changed to his detriment in any manner by transferring him from the post of Dean of College to the post of Dean of Post-graduate Studies, and as a consequence his service conditions are not at all affected by this transfer. An order of transfer is normally not justiciable when an employee is transferred by the competent authority from one post to another in the same grade or scale of pay because transfer is purely an administrative matter. Section 20 of the Krishi Act reads as follows: "20. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and ex-officio Chairman of the Board and of the Academic Council. He shall, in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at the convocation of the University and confer degrees on persons entitled to receive them. (2) 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. (3) The Vice-Chancellor shall convene a meeting of the Board of Management and the Academic Council, unless he temporarily delegates the power to some other officer of the University. (2) 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. (3) The Vice-Chancellor shall convene a meeting of the Board of Management and the Academic Council, unless he temporarily delegates the power to some other officer of the University. (4) The Vice-Chancellor shall ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Regulations and he shall exercise such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the presentation of annual financial estimates and the annual accounts and balance sheet to the Board. (6) The Vice-Chancellor may take any action in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action and he shall in such a case and as soon as may be thereafter report his action to the authority which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter and if the authority disagrees with the action of the Vice-Chancellor the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, whose decision shall be final. Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to empower the Vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and provided for in the budget. (7) Subject to the provisions of the preceding sub-sections, the Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the Board regarding the appointment, suspension and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University. (8) Where any action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (6) affects any person in the service of the University to his disadvantage, such action shall not be taken unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the person against whom any action is proposed to be taken may prefer an appeal to the Board within thirty days of the date on which the action proposed to be taken is communicated to him. (9) The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the proper administration of the University and for a close co-ordination and integration of teaching, research and extension education. (10) The Vice-Chancellor may appoint temporarily, under intimation to the Board, a suitable person for a period not exceeding six months in a vacancy of an officer, teacher or any other employee in the University. (10) The Vice-Chancellor may appoint temporarily, under intimation to the Board, a suitable person for a period not exceeding six months in a vacancy of an officer, teacher or any other employee in the University. (11) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers, as may be prescribed, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act. 20. Therefore, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions of section 20, it follows that the Vice-Chancellor being the Head has to run the administration and has also to look into the affairs of the new University for its smooth running. The Vice-Chancellor has also control over the affairs of the new University and is responsible for the maintenance of discipline and order in the new University. The Vice Chancellor has to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of the Krishi Act, the Statutes and the regulations and he has to exercise such powers as may be necessary in this behalf. The Vice-Chancellor is also responsible for the proper administration of the new University and for a close co-ordination and integration of teaching the research and extension education. The Vice-Chancellor has also to exercise such other powers as may be prescribed for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the Krishi Act. In these circumstances, when Dr. H. R. Kalia, the Vice-Chancellor, has given a reply in the return that the transfer of respondent No. I has been made in the public interest, it clearly means that the Vice-Chancellor was of the opinion that the transfer is in the interest of the new University and as such he had all the powers of transferring respondent No. 1 by issuing the order, Annexure RA. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent laid much stress upon the duties and functions which are to be performed by the Deans of Colleges and the Dean of Post-graduate Studies and also contended that conditions of service of respondent No. 1 are being changed. It may be pointed out that duties and functions attached to the different posts are not the criterion for judging as to whether the posts are inter-changeable or inter-transferable. As already stated, the different sections of the Act and the Statutes framed under the Act lay down that the word "Dean?” covers both the posts and that the salary benefit and other privileges, etc. As already stated, the different sections of the Act and the Statutes framed under the Act lay down that the word "Dean?” covers both the posts and that the salary benefit and other privileges, etc. attached to both the posts are same, and similarly qualifications, etc. as well as the selection, etc. for both the posts are also the same. In the normal course of events the duties and functions for the two posts are likely to differ in any administration but this will not mean that the "conditions of service" of a person are being changed or that the two posts are of different ranks. Even section 22 does not say that a separate selection committee has to be constituted for the two posts. Section 22 only lays down the general rule for filling up any of the two posts whenever a case pertaining to the first appointment to the post is involved. In view of this, section 22 has no application at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the transfer of respondent No. 1, vide Annexure RA, cannot be said to be void. The respondent No. 1 has not at all suffered in any privileges, status or salary in any manner and as such it can safely be concluded that no failure of justice has been caused to the respondent No. 1 and the conditions of service of respondent No. 1 are also not being changed. 22. On the question of mala fides the learned Single Judge has referred to Annexures G, G-l, E, F. RB and RC. Annexures G and G-l are only letters written by respondent No. 1 to Dr. H. R. Kalia, complaining about the behaviour of Shri R. P. Awasthy, an employee of the new University, and regarding the transfer of one Dr. Bhutani. These letters do not show at all that Dr. H. R. Kalia had any malice against respondent No. 1 in the beginning of May, 1979, when the said letters were written to him by respondent No.1. 23. Bhutani. These letters do not show at all that Dr. H. R. Kalia had any malice against respondent No. 1 in the beginning of May, 1979, when the said letters were written to him by respondent No.1. 23. Annexures E and F are the two letters/memorandums written by respondent No. 1 to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Simla, and the Chancellor of the new University, complaining about certain irregularities and illegalities which are being or have been committed in the new University and also making allegations against the Vice-Chancellor for not controlling the new University campus properly. It appears that copies of these memos were forwarded to Dr. H. R. Kalia, Vice-Chancellor for his comments and reply by the Chief Minister and the Chancellor. On receipt of these memos/complaints, Dr. H. R. Kalia submitted his reply to the Chancellor of the new University on 23rd June, 1979, vide Annexure RB, and to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, on 19th July, 1979, vide Annexure RC. In these replies or the comments offered by Dr. H. R. Kalia to the Chancellor the former has tried to explain the true position prevailing in the new University campus and has given replies to the various allegations/complaints made by respondent No. 1. Dr. H. R. Kalia has also opined that his oral enquiries revealed that the attitude of respondent No. 1 was hostile towards him. Similarly in his reply to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, which is dated 19th July, 1979, Dr. H. R. Kalia has only cleared his position by saying that respondent No. 1 has prejudices against him and that enquiries made by him reveal that the local police and the civil authorities have cast aspersions on the conduct of respondent No. 1 in dealing with the agitations, etc. in the new University campus. Dr. H. R. Kalia had further given his opinion to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, to the effect that the continuation of respondent No. 1 as Dean of the College is extremely detrimental to the progress of Solan campus of the Agriculture University. These are the only allegations of mala fide made in paras 13 and 14 of the writ petition and the same have been controverted by Dr, H. R. Kalia in his return which is supported by an affidavit. These are the only allegations of mala fide made in paras 13 and 14 of the writ petition and the same have been controverted by Dr, H. R. Kalia in his return which is supported by an affidavit. The learned Single Judge referred to the contents of Annexures RB and RC and has come to the conclusion that the action of Dr. H. R. Kalia, Vice-Chancellor, is mala fide. We have not been able to agree with this conclusion of the learned Single Judge because the Vice-Chancellor, being the incharge of the new University and being the administrative Head he had to look to the interest and welfare of the new University and was duty bound to give out his opinion which had been formed by him about respondent No. 1 after having made local enquiries from the residents, the police and the students. It also appears that the Agriculture Production Commissioner was appointed to make some probe into the complaints made by respondent No. 1 to the Chief Minister and the Chancellor but nothing seems to have come out against the Vice-Chancellor. If a Vice-Chancellor forms an opinion about his subordinates and the Chancellor or the Chief Minister as the Head of the new University or the State upon the complaint of some persons call for any comments from the Vice-Chancellor in the matter, then the Vice-Chancellor is fully justified to disclose his opinion and he is well within his rights to send his comments to the alleged complaint. It does not mean that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is mala fide. The Vice-Chancellor having the authority to transfer a person from one post to another in the interest of the new University was within his competence to transfer respondent No. 1 especially when he had information with that the local police and civil authorities had cast aspersions on respondent No. 1 in the matter of his handling the students agitation, and as such the action of transfer of respondent No. 1 by the Vice-Chancellor, vide Annexure RA, cannot be said to be mala fide. Even otherwise there is no sufficient material on record to prove that the order, Annexure RA, was issued due to any mala fides and specially when the allegations of mala fides alleged by respondent No. 1 are denied by the Vice-Chancellor. 24. Even otherwise there is no sufficient material on record to prove that the order, Annexure RA, was issued due to any mala fides and specially when the allegations of mala fides alleged by respondent No. 1 are denied by the Vice-Chancellor. 24. In view of the above discussion, we disagree with the findings of the learned Single Judge, set aside the order, dated 22nd May, 1980, passed by the learned Single Judge, and accept this appeal. The writ petition of respondent No. 1 shall stand dismissed. 25. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The oral request of Shri Inder Singh learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 for issue of a certificate of fitness for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court is disallowed, as, in our opinion, no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this case. Appeal allowed.