JUDGEMENT 1. Annexure-3 came to be assailed by the petitioner when the Registrar of B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University decided to transfer him from R.S.S. Mahila College, Sitamarhi to S.R.A.P. College, Bara Chakia. 2. Submission of the counsel is that the order of transfer has been passed at the behest of the acting Vice-Chancellor for extraneous reason without there being material in this regard available for such a transfer. He submits that the manner and mechanism in which the order or transfer has been effected is evident now from the material brought on record by the respondent university in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. 3. A letter written by the acting Vice-Chancellor addressed to the Honble Chancellor which is Annexure-R/3 dated 28.2.2011 talks about two colleges one is M.J.K. College, Bettiah and another is R.S.S. Mahila College, Sitamarhi. The Vice-Chancellor indicates that the present Principal is not capable to utilize all the funds and bring about change to the college because he has not been able to utilize even 5 lacs of rupees in 21/2 years against a sanctioned amount of 20 lacs for general improvement of infrastructure and science laboratory. That was the reason why a change was recommended with regard to Principal of M.J.K. College with regard to the present petitioner, Dr. Hari Narayan Thakur, who is the Principal of what is known as R.S.S. Mahila College, Sitamarhi, the acting Vice-Chancellor writes, "further Dr. H.N Thakur being a male person was found unfit for the girls college and the administrative situation in the college become so worse that the university was forced to order to share financial control by Finance Officer in place of Bursar of the College. 4. This is supposed to be the foundational fact based on which the Chancellor gave his approval for transfer and thereafter within two days the impugned order contained in Annexure-3 came to be passed. 5. Submission of the counsel is that what is that glaring and distributing material which is available to make such a communication to the Chancellor that the petitioner Dr. Hari Narayan Thakur being a male person was found unfit for a girls college. 5. Submission of the counsel is that what is that glaring and distributing material which is available to make such a communication to the Chancellor that the petitioner Dr. Hari Narayan Thakur being a male person was found unfit for a girls college. The court has gone through the entire records including the annexures and so-called complaint which has been made by some of the teachers but none of them would show that petitioner was involved in any case of moral turpitude or bad conduct which can debar him from becoming a Principal of College, which may be a girls college. In fact it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the college where the petitioner has been transferred is not bereft of the female species and it is not known as to how such a transfer is going to be helpful in preventing the petitioner from performing his duty as a Principal in a College which is not devoid of women. 6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the university submits that there are certain communications to show that at least two of the teachers of the college namely Professor Indu Singh and Prabha Singh have written letters to the Vice-Chancellor of University making grievances and alleging things against the petitioner. This shows that all is not well in the college and the affairs of the college cannot be carried out with such conditions so long as he continues to be the Principal of the College. 7. The Court has meticulously gone through all these complaints and letters. These are routine kinds of complaints which any head of an institution will face if he is firm in resolve to run the administration. None of the complaints would show that the petitioner is actually unfit to work as a Principal in a Girls College. There is a clash of ego and conflict of interest but that is prevalent in every institution including a College. Not every decision taken by the Principal can be said to be the liking of each and every teacher of the institution. 8. Obviously, there is something more to the order of transfer then the so-called reason which was communicated to the Chancellor for transfer of the present petitioner from his place of posting. Not every decision taken by the Principal can be said to be the liking of each and every teacher of the institution. 8. Obviously, there is something more to the order of transfer then the so-called reason which was communicated to the Chancellor for transfer of the present petitioner from his place of posting. It also emerges from the material that it was a rushed kind of decision under what compulsion one does not know as no material has been brought which help the Court in coming to the conclusion that the order of transfer is for an administrative reason because the order of transfer only shows that this has been done in the interest of education as well as academic administration of the college. 9. Obviously delightfully vague expressions have been used for passing the order of transfer, which cannot be sustained in the circumstances in which it came to be passed. 10. Petitioner has made out a case for interference with the order. The order impugned in so far as relates to the petitioner is quashed. However, it is left open to the concerned authority that if there are materials and circumstance existing which requires a change then they do have the powers but it has to be exercised bona fidely and not for oblique motive. 11. Another submission which has been made at the bar on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel that the statute 39 (III) gives power of transfer. Teacher includes a Principal, and can be transferred for administrative reason. There is no quarrel with the statute in the manner in which such power has been exercised. 12. There is no material to show that the decision has been taken in terms of the statute and for the reason indicated therein. None of those materials have emerged from the pleadings as well as the evidence, which has been brought on record in support of the order of transfer as the order by itself does not show the administrative reason requiring such a decision. The order of transfer passed against the petitioner considered Annexure-1 to the extent of the petitioner is quashed. Writ is allowed.