JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Agni, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 3, Mr. Ambekar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondent no.4. 2. Vide order dated 21/3/2013, this Court had directed issuance of notice to the respondents, returnable on 28/3/2013 and in the mean time, in view of the peculiar facts stated in the petition, the petitioner was permitted to report to the Registrar of respondent no.1, instead of reporting to respondent no. 2. 3. On 22/7/2013, learned Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3 stated that the petitioner has refused to discharge the duties from June 2013 which have been allotted to her by the Registrar and as such, the interim order dated 21/3/2013 deserves to be vacated. By way of additional Affidavit dated 25/7/2013, the respondent no.1 alleged that the petitioner had resumed her duties from 25/3/2013 in the department of Philosophy, Goa University and by note dated 17/4/2013, the Head of Department of Philosophy, Goa University was intimated that all the communications submitted by the petitioner be directly forwarded to the office of the Registrar for further processing as she will directly report to the Registrar, as per the Court order dated 21/3/2013. It is further stated in the additional affidavit that vide letter dated 26/6/2013, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the petitioner is required to teach the compulsory courses in the first term of 2013-2014 in the scheduled classroom as per the time table which was set out in the letter dated 26/6/2013. By the said letter, the attendance sheets with the names of the students in the two compulsory courses were also forwarded and the petitioner was required to start teaching in the allocated courses immediately on receipt of the communication. It is stated in the additional affidavit that the petitioner did not start teaching in terms of the said letter and instead wrote a letter to the Registrar, Goa University, to the effect that she was unable to engage in activities of the Department of Philosophy till the petition is decided by the High Court and only if the respondent Dr. Vinay Kumar is transferred or removed from that Department, she can begin teaching. Vinay Kumar is transferred or removed from that Department, she can begin teaching. By letter dated 16/7/2013, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the order of the High Court does not speak of any directives to the Goa University not to allot any teaching assignment to the petitioner in view of the continued status of the petitioner as an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the petitioner has very well understood the meaning of the order dated 21/3/2013 but under the cover of the said order, has not resumed her academic duties. It has, therefore, been prayed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 3, vide this additional affidavit, that the order dated 21/3/2013 be vacated. 4. By way of Affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has, inter alia, alleged that the Philosophy Department is situated in the humanities building which is located at the edge of the sprawling campus of Goa University and it is buried at the deep end of several corridors. It is further stated that the security, if any, is only posted at the entrance of the Humanities Building and that the private room of the petitioner where she sits during the period in between the lectures and sometimes late in evening to do research is round the corner to Dr. Vinay Kumar's room and in such situation, she is vulnerable to all kinds of threats. She has stated that if she is now made to work in the Philosophy Department she can expect only abject humiliation, harassment, including sexual harassment and physical assault. She has alleged that she cannot sleep at all for fear of being compelled to work under Dr. Vinay Kumar and she is an insulin dependent diabetic and her sugar and Blood Pressure have shot up and she has developed stress induced asthma for which she is under treatment at Goa Medical College. She has, therefore, stated that she cannot be physically located in the Philosophy department. She has stated that in view of the nature of work and general situation, to enable her to commence teaching and research with a fresh and free mind at the interim stage, she may be transferred/deputed to the Physics Department and this shall minimally entail that: i) She directly reports to the Head of Department of Physics. She has stated that in view of the nature of work and general situation, to enable her to commence teaching and research with a fresh and free mind at the interim stage, she may be transferred/deputed to the Physics Department and this shall minimally entail that: i) She directly reports to the Head of Department of Physics. ii) She is allotted a room in the Physics Dept. iii) She teaches in the class rooms of the Physics Dept. iv) She conducts exams in the physics department under the direct supervision of the H.O.D. (Physics) and submits results etc. to him. v) In general H.O.D. Physics sits on her promotional panels etc. and for all purposes, in her case, the H.O.D. of Physics performs all the functions of a legitimate H.O.D.. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the submissions made by the petitioner's Counsel cannot be accepted. The order dated 21/3/2013 cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioner has been permitted only to report to the Registrar of respondent no.1 and not to perform teaching duties nor is there any compelling reason, otherwise, for not doing the assigned duties. Prima facie, it appears that for her own convenience, the petitioner has misconstrued the said order not to do any work but to avail of the salary and all other benefits without doing any work, which cannot be permitted. 6. On 21/03/2013, the petitioner had prayed for leave to amend the petition, which leave was granted. By way of amendment, a relief was sought to the effect that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Court be pleased to protect the petitioner, by ex-parte interim order in terms of prayer clause (1) by directing the petitioner not to report to the respondent no. 2. A prayer for ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of the above was also added. It was also prayed in prayer clause 5(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Court be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to transfer the petitioner to the department of Physics in order to pursue her research work and also to teach courses in the Philosophy of Science as electives to students of the department as well as students from other disciplines. 3 to transfer the petitioner to the department of Physics in order to pursue her research work and also to teach courses in the Philosophy of Science as electives to students of the department as well as students from other disciplines. From the above ex-parte relief as prayed for in paragraph 5(c) read with paragraph 10 of the Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 8/8/2013, filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner wants transfer to the Department of Physics. The above, prima facie, is not permissible since the petitioner is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy. 7. Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of “Vishaka and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others” reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the employer should ensure that the victims or witnesses are not victimized or discriminated against while dealing with the complaint of sexual harassment. It is further observed by the Apex Court that the victims of sexual harassment should have the option to seek a transfer of perpetrator or their own transfer. It is noticed that in the letter dated 10/11/2009, the petitioner has specifically stated that she does not believe that Dr. Vinay Kumar's sexual harassment in her case is borne out of any sexual interest. It is further stated by her that it is a form of power-play with a desire to humiliate, harass and destroy her. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has misconstrued the order dated 21/3/2013. The petitioner was only permitted not to report to the respondent no. 2 but was asked to report to the Registrar of Respondent no.1. This Court had not stated anything about the duties to be performed by the petitioner. The petitioner was bound to have performed her teaching duties as per the assignment given to her. 9. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner regarding vulnerability to any kind of threats, humiliation, harassment including sexual harassment and physical harassment on account of alleged location of the classroom of department of Philosophy, is concerned, at this stage, we are of the considered view that there is no substance in such apprehension because in the said classroom there are bound to be several students along with the petitioner and she would not be alone. 10. 10. In the interest of justice, however, we do not feel it appropriate to vacate the said interim order dated 21/3/2013. But we make it clear that the order dated 21/3/2013 only permits the petitioner to report to the Registrar of Respondent no.1. The same does not permit the petitioner not to do teaching duties, as assigned to her. 11. Stand over to 28/8/2013.