JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, J. : Two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, registered as Civil Order No. 4336(W) of 1991 and Civil Order No. 5138 (W) of 1994, were filed by the respondent writ petitioner, which were decided by a common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 31st January, 1995 against which two appeals were preferred and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The writ petitioner passed B.Sc. with Distinction from the Calcutta University and thereafter he participated in a Diploma Course in Nutrition under the University of Calcutta in All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta. Before the writ petitioner could complete the Diploma Course in Nutrition, he got an offer for higher studies in Chemistry in West Germany in two different universities. The writ petitioner then completed the integrated Master of Technology studies in Chemistry from a Technical University of West Germany. The writ petitioner was thereupon appointed as Research Assistant by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, in the Department of Metallurgy. The writ petitioner then made an effort to complete the Doctorate in Engineering Course in Austria, but could not complete the same. He then again made an attempt to complete the Doctor of Science Course from the University of Freiburg, West Germany in the discipline of Biology, Genetic Engineering and Molecular Biology, Micro-Bio logy and Immunology, but could not complete the same. He then joined as Research Assistant (Junior Scientific Officer) in the Department of Chemical Engineering, Jadavpur University in a Temporary Research Project, temporarily for a period of 2 years or during the duration of the project, whichever is earlier. Thereafter the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Scientific Officer under a temporary sponsored research project for a period of two years by the Sponsored Research and Industrial Consultancy Wing of the appellant. In the meantime an advertisement was published by the appellant on 8th January, 1988, which was responded by the writ petitioner. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that the Application Forms and other details would be available on sending a self addressed stamped envelop within 31st January, 1988 to the Registrar of the appellant and that the last date of receiving completed application is 22nd February, 1988. What were the other details and what was the format of the Application Form are not on record. What were the other details and what was the format of the Application Form are not on record. However, on 21st July, 1988 the Sponsored Research and Industrial Consultancy Wing of the appellant offered an appointment to the writ petitioner in the post of Lecturer in a temporary Sponsored Research Project. In the said offer letter it was specifically mentioned that the post offered to the writ petitioner is purely temporary for a period upto 24th August, 1991 or for the duration of the project, whichever is earlier. It was also mentioned that if the services of the writ petitioner are extended due to extension of the project, the service conditions of the writ petitioner shall remain the same during the extended period. The writ petitioner accepted the said appointment and in writing confirmed that he is accepting the said offer and the pay and allowances as well as terms and conditions set forth in the offer letter. The project under which the writ petitioner was appointed was financed by the Government of India. The Government of India refused to finance the said project beyond 31st March, 1991. Therefore, the said project was not to continue beyond 31st March, 1991, and as such by a notice dated 27th February, 1991 the writ petitioner was informed that the project, in which the writ petitioner was rendering services against a temporary post has not been extended beyond 31st March, 1991 and accordingly the services of the writ petitioner will stand terminated with effect from 31st March, 1991. The writ petitioner made a request to withdraw the said notice and to permit him to continue in the Department of Chemical Engineering of the appellant. This was not acceded. Subsequently on 12th March, 1991 the appellant published yet another advertisement to fill up regular faculty posts like, Professor, Associated Professor and Assistant Professor. At this juncture the first writ petitioner was filed seeking quashing of the said notice dated 27th February, 1991 and regularization of the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in the Department of Chemical Engineering of the appellant. After the writ petition was filed an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court then dealing with the matter to the effect that till the disposal of the writ petition a post of lecturer in the appellant should be kept vacant. 3. After the writ petition was filed an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court then dealing with the matter to the effect that till the disposal of the writ petition a post of lecturer in the appellant should be kept vacant. 3. During the pendency of the said writ petition on 5th October, 1993 the writ petitioner was offered on humanitarian grounds a permanent post of Scientific Officer by the appellant. It was mentioned in the said offer letter that the petitioner will be required to perform duties of Scientific Officer as may be assigned to him by or under the orders of the Director and/or any competent authority of the appellant. This was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, who was then dealing with the first writ petition, when the writ petitioner was permitted to accept the said offer without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the first writ petition. The writ petitioner then joined the post of Scientific Officer without prejudice to his rights and contentions in his first writ petition. He was posted to the Chemical Engineering Department. The writ petitioner was then instructed to contact Prof. B.C. Bhattacharjee, Coordinator of Bio-technology Section and in charge of Bio-tech Laboratory of the appellant for allotment of teaching load. The writ petitioner was thereafter by an order dated 25th November, 1993 transferred from the Chemical Engineering Department to the Department of Chemistry. The writ petitioner protested against the said transfer which was of no effect and on the contrary the Registrar of the appellant by a letter dated 21st December, 1993 asked immediate compliance of the directions contained in the latter of the appellant dated 25th November, 1993 and challenging the said decision to transfer the writ petitioner, the 2nd writ petition was filed, when a threat was given by the Registrar of the appellant that if the petitioner does not join his duty from 22nd December, 1993, his salary would be stopped. 4. 4. Having regard to the facts, as narrated above, the learned Single Judge, who delivered the impugned judgement, formulated the following two points for consideration in the manner as follows:- "In the pleadings and events during the course of the proceeding as aforesaid, the questions for consideration are (1) whether the petitioner's service as lecturer in the sponsored project was liable to be terminated with the project having come to an end (2) whether after he joined the permanent post of Scientific Officer by virtue of the modified interim order he was liable to be transferred from the Chemical Engineering Department to the Chemistry Department in view of the knowledge and experience not befitting the biotechnology wing of the Chemical Engineering Department". The learned Judge answered the same in the manner as follows : "Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties I am of the view that the contention of neither party can be wholly accepted. For, in the first place, the advertisement cannot play such a role as to create a right in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to, the advertisement but he was not selected for any advertised post and was given an altogether separate offer for the post of lecturer in a project which the accepted and therefore the advertisement cannot affect his right as a project lecturer. Secondly, the record of discussions that they left over would retain their status as permanent lecturers in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000/- could not also confer any right upon the writ petitioner as he was not a faculty member and the scale of Rs. 3000-5000/- was only made available to project lecturer pursuant to some policy decision. He was given only the scale and not the status of permanency as an officer and staff of a project could not be made permanent unless the sponsorer agrees to or until such officer and staff are taken in the main stream of the I.I.T. service. At the same time I cannot persuade, myself to overlook the qualifications and experiences of the writ petitioner as detailed in the writ petition, even if the same is only partially true. At the same time I cannot persuade, myself to overlook the qualifications and experiences of the writ petitioner as detailed in the writ petition, even if the same is only partially true. There is no doubt that the petitioner has suffered successively, first in his basic pay when he joined as project lecturer and substantially when by virtue of the offer made by the I.I.T. authority and as approved by the Court, he agreed to join without prejudice as Scientific Officer, the pay scale thereby was reduced from Rs. 3000-5000/- to the Rs. 2200-4000/-, a clear degradation curve which in the atmosphere of education and research of the I.I.T. should never have happened. The Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court denounced the practice of appointing scientists from one project to another successively and then to throw them out on the ground that the project has come to an end and at a time when the scientist has already advanced in age so much so to be debarred in age from getting a service suitably. In this context the order of transfer that was served upon the petitioner may be considered. True an employer is entitled to transfer his employee and which and where in respect thereof is the sole discretion of the employer but then, if the transfer is motivated or designed to serve upon employer's ill will, the employer being the State authority within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India, the Courts have never been hesitant to quash such transfer orders as being mala fide. There is no denying that the petitioner's expertise, knowledge and experience are in the field of Biotechnology under the Chemical Engineering Department but since he has been litigating over his termination of service and since the authority by virtue of the interim order had been compelled to pay salaries to him same ink must have been caused and it seems that the result was his posting in the chemistry department where he would likely to become a square peg in a round hole as otherwise there could be no reason for the transfer. In this view of the matter the transfer order certainly lacks bona fide and is liable to be set aside and quashed. The petitioner was working as a lecturer in a project in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/-. In this view of the matter the transfer order certainly lacks bona fide and is liable to be set aside and quashed. The petitioner was working as a lecturer in a project in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-5000/-. The project came to an end with the expiry of March 1991 but by virtue of Court's interim order the petitioner had been continuing and getting pay in the said scale. Under an interim order a post of lecturer in the I.I.T. is supposed to have been kept vacant for the petitioner but since the petitioner has no right to be appointed in the I.I.T. after closure of the project, the post, if any, kept vacant, is of no use to us except for the purpose of regularising his pay and service during the period of this proceeding till he joined the permanent post. I have already pointed out that the petitioner has successively suffered reduction in pay, which is certainly not desirable keeping in view the petitioner's education arid qualification on the one hand and the research and educational activities of the I.I.T. on the other, as also in national interest it is of paramount importance to prevent brain drain. Considering all these, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is liable to be allowed in part and to the extent indicated below. The interim order of appointment against the permanent vacancy of scientific officer in the I.I.T. as offered and accepted is herewith confirmed with the direction that the petitioner shall be given pay protection since he joined this post. The impugned order of transfer is set aside. His service as Lecturer during the pendency of the proceeding be regularized till he jointed as Scientific Officer. All back wages be paid, if not already done within a period of two months. Let this decision be not treated as a precedent." 5. The learned Single Judge, as appears from the impugned judgment, while interfering with the order of transfer held that the writ petitioner had expertise, knowledge and experience in Biotechnology and that the reason for the transfer was to punish the writ petitioner for he litigated against the appellant. The transfer as was effected was within the institution of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, as appears from the impugned judgment, while interfering with the order of transfer held that the writ petitioner had expertise, knowledge and experience in Biotechnology and that the reason for the transfer was to punish the writ petitioner for he litigated against the appellant. The transfer as was effected was within the institution of the appellant. The appointment, which was given to the petitioner expressly stated that he will be required to perform duties of scientific officer as may be assigned to him. His educational qualifications show that he successfully completed higher studies in Chemistry and made effort to complete further higher studies in Genetic Engineering and Micro Biology and Immunology, but those were in vain. By reason of the transfer to the Department of Chemistry, effected to give him appropriate assignment, nothing has been done by the appellant at least nothing could be shown on behalf of the writ petitioner to affect the career of the writ petitioner. It was not the case of the writ petitioner that he was involved in a very important research assignment and that he was transferred at a time when his efforts were about to give result. It was not proper to assume that since the writ petitioner has filed a litigation against the appellant, to teach a lesson the transfer was effected. In point of fact the very appointment was given after the writ petitioner litigated. There was, therefore, no just reason to interfere with the said order of transfer. 6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order expressly stated that the decision given by him in the matter should not be treated as a precedent. But however, by giving the decision a new right has been created in favour of the writ petitioner. The question is, whether it could be done in the facts of the case? The learned Single Judge did not hold that the writ petitioner could continue to remain in the post in which he was originally appointed. The learned Single Judge did not hold that the petitioner is still continuing in the said post. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the notice by which the petitioner was reminded that his services shall come to an end on a particular date. The learned Single Judge did not hold that the petitioner is still continuing in the said post. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the notice by which the petitioner was reminded that his services shall come to an end on a particular date. In other words, the services, which were being rendered by the writ petitioner and which came to an end, were not revived. There was termination of the temporary appointment of the petitioner and the same was complete. The question is can a person carry with him the right to receive equal salary as he was receiving while in service, which has been terminated, when joining a new post in the selfsame organization? The concept of pay protection is continuation of the right to receive the same salary while posted in different posts during the continuance of the self-same service. In the event the services come to an end, the right to receive salary does not continue and accordingly while such person joins a new post on the commencement of a new service even with the self-same employer, he does not carry with him the right to get salary at par with what he was getting during the course of his terminated service. In those circumstancs, we have no other option but to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly we do so and set aside the same. 7. During the course of submission the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge has been implemented by the appellant and accordingly the appellant is estopped from pressing the appeals. We have looked into the order of the appellant, which was passed while implementing the impugned judgment, and found that the appellant implemented the impugned judgment subject to the result of the appeals. Therefore, the implementation of the impugned judgment was conditional upon the success of the appeal and as such there is no estoppel against the appellant. Since on merits we have been persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment, implementation of the judgment on the condition aforesaid do not stand in setting aside the impugned judgement. We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment without any order as to costs. Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.: I agree. Appeals allowed.