JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. This writ petition arises assailing the impugned cancellation of the petitioner’s transfer order to the post of Lecturer in Department of Acquaculture at Mohanpur campus. 2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is as follows : Fact of the Case That the petitioner passed M.SC examination from the University of Calcutta in the year 1993. It is stated that Ramshai Krishi Vigyan Kendra is situated in Maynaguri Block of Jalpaiguri District. The said Krishi Vigyan Kendra originally started in the year 1983 under a non-Government organisation named as Ramkrishna Seva Kendra and that was continued up to 1992. The said Seva Kendra got the approval from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ICAR) under West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences. This approval order was communicated by letter dated 18th June, 2001. It is further stated that West Bengal University of Family and Fishery Science has been established by promulgation of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Act, 1995 with the object to provide facilities for the study of Animal and Fishery Sciences and for conduct of research. On 15th October, 2001, the Deputy Registrar the respondent no.1 herein published an advertisement in the Bengali daily newspaper inviting application from the candidates for filing up some posts including the post of training associate in the said West Bengal Animal and Fishery Sciences University. In response to that advertisement petitioner having requisite qualification for the post of training associate (Fishery Science) made application. Accordingly the petitioner was called by the selection board and on 3rd December, 2001 passed the said interview successfully. As a result whereof the selection committee recommended the petitioner’s name for appointment to the post of training associate for Fisheries Science). Upon such recommendation petitioner was appointed on 3rd December, 2001 to the said post of training associate in the scale of Rs.8000/- to Rs.13,500/- under the Krishi Vigyan Kendra (in short KVK) at Ramsai, Jalpaigur. Petitioner duly joined the said post of training associate (Fisheries Science) under KVK at Ramsai, Jalpaiguri on 4th/5th December, 2001. While working in the said KVK Ramsai, the petitioner received a letter on 8th April, 2002 issued by the then Vice Chancellor of the University. It appears from the said memo that one Dr. Petitioner duly joined the said post of training associate (Fisheries Science) under KVK at Ramsai, Jalpaiguri on 4th/5th December, 2001. While working in the said KVK Ramsai, the petitioner received a letter on 8th April, 2002 issued by the then Vice Chancellor of the University. It appears from the said memo that one Dr. B.K. Chand was carrying out the work of hatching at Mohanpur Campus of fishery faculty and the petitioner being the training associate of KVK Ramsai was asked to collaborate with the said Dr. Chand at Mohanpur till the first few series of hatching activities. It is submitted that although the petitioner joined in the post of training associate (Fishry) under KVK, he is a staff on the cadre of the respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the scientific technical and supporting staff of the KVK are the cadre of respective host institution i.e. in the case of the petitioner the respondent no.1. Therefore, the service condition of the petitioner is guided by the respondent no.1’s statutes and policies. By the memo dated 6th January, 2003 the former Vice Chancellor transferred the petitioner to the post of lecturer in department of Acquaculture under the faculty of fishery at Mohanpur. As a result thereof on 7th January, 2002 the petitioner was released from the post of training associate (Fishery) at Ramsai to join the post of lecturer in the department of Acquaculture at Mohanpur and thereafter in the afternoon petitioner reported to the said department of Acquaculture to join his duties as lecturer. During the petitioner’s service in the campus at Mohanpur petitioner received a letter on 6th January, 2003 issued by the then Vice Chancellor Sri A.K. Bhattacharya wherefrom it reveals that petitioner has been transferred to department of Acquaculture in the post of lecturer keeping the vacant post of reader in lien in the same department under the faculty of Fishery Science. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the said letter has been issued in the interest of the respondent university pursuant to the Clause 10 (6) of the said act of 1995. Accordingly the petitioner was released from its parent post to join his new associate as lecturer. Needless to mention that petitioner was transferred along with one Dr. Sourav Chanda by the said transfer order dated 6th January, 2003. Accordingly the petitioner was released from its parent post to join his new associate as lecturer. Needless to mention that petitioner was transferred along with one Dr. Sourav Chanda by the said transfer order dated 6th January, 2003. The ICAR through letter dated 14th January, 2003 raised objection to such posting of petitioner and one Dr. Sourav Chanda on the ground that was not passed by following the procedure and requested the University to transfer them back to the KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri. Accordingly, Dr. Sourav Chanda joined KVK, Ramsai, jalpaiguri but the petitioner did not join. Hence, the present writ petition. Submissions of the Learned Advocates 3. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner initially joined as training associate under K.V.K but by the said transfer order dated 6th January, 2003 petitioner was transferred to the post of lecturer in the department of Aquaculture under the faculty of Fishery Science at Mohanpur in Nadia from forenoon of 7th January, 2003. Therefore, under the ICAR guideline petitioner is a cadre under respondent no.1. 4. Mr. Mukherjee further emphasized in his argument that the petitioner has been transferred to the department of Acquaculture in the post of lecturer, keeping the post of reader vacant in lien under the same department under the faculty of fishery science. Furthermore, that order was passed in the interest of respondent no.1 pursuant to Clause 10 (6) of the said Act of 1995. The Clause 10 (6) of the said Act of 1995 is quoted below: “Section-10 (6)- The Vice Chancellor may take any action in an emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. He shall, in such cases and as soon as may be thereafter, report such action to the authority which shall ordinarily have dealt with the matter.” 5. Mr. Mukherjee also vehemently argued that prior to passing the transfer order the then Vice Chancellor sometime in December, 2002 prepared a report concerning the urgent requirement of a lecturer in Acquaculture Department situated at Mohanpur campus. The said report was prepared and submitted before the concerned authority under the said Act for consideration. 6. Mr. Mukherjee also submitted that said report says, inter alia, that due to accidental fire the department of Acquaculture in Mohanpur campus has sustained great loss. Therefore, the department requires immediate attention of renovation of the laboratory cum practical class. The said report was prepared and submitted before the concerned authority under the said Act for consideration. 6. Mr. Mukherjee also submitted that said report says, inter alia, that due to accidental fire the department of Acquaculture in Mohanpur campus has sustained great loss. Therefore, the department requires immediate attention of renovation of the laboratory cum practical class. That being the situation one lecturer in the said department cannot control the process of renovation. Therefore, the petitioner being the technical associate attached to KVK Ramsai having special experience in ornamental fish cultivation and also in the Acquaculture Department was transferred from the post of technical associate KVK, Ramsai to the Acquaculture Department at Mohanpur. 7. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that following all the formalities as per rules the petitioner was transferred from the post of technical associate Ramsai to the post of lecturer of Acquaculture Department at Mohanpur under respondent no.1. 8. Mr. Mukherjee further vehemently argued that before issuing the impugned order of transfer the members of the council repeatedly demanded before the respondent no.2 to include the said appraisal note in the agenda of the said meeting for proper deliberation and discussion on the same. But the respondent no.2 deliberately and whimsically without looking into said appraisal note prepared by the respondent no.3 issued the impugned transfer order. 9. Mr. Mukherjee also strongly argued that respondent no.2 being dictated by the Zonal Coordinator Zone-2 of ICAR had passed the cancellation of the petitioner’s transfer to the said post of lecturer under the respondent no.1 though the said transfer order has not been received by the petitioner till date. 10. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that ICAR is merely the funding authority of the KVK and its approval in the matter of transfer of the petitioner for the post of training associate to the post of lecturer in fishery faculty cannot be questioned. 11. Mr. Mukherjee further vehemently argued that the petitioner’s former order of transfer from the post of training associate to the post of lecturer cannot be cancelled by the present Vice Chancellor since the two posts are not equal in status and responsibilities. 11. Mr. Mukherjee further vehemently argued that the petitioner’s former order of transfer from the post of training associate to the post of lecturer cannot be cancelled by the present Vice Chancellor since the two posts are not equal in status and responsibilities. Furthermore, upon being dictated by the Zonal Coordinator Zone-2 of ICAR the newly appointed Vice Chancellor recalled/cancelled the transfer order of the petitioner such cancellation order clearly hits Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India at the same time patently contrary to the fair, justifying the action to be adopted by the respondent authority. But in the present case the act of the respondent no.2 clearly shows that being dictated by some Zonal Co-ordinator the transfer order was cancelled by respondent no.2 in an unfair, unjust and unwarranted manner. Such unfair act very much warrant interference of this Hon’ble Court. 12. Mr. Mukherjee also drew Court’s attention to the letter dated 14th January, 2004 written by Dr. P. Das Deputy Director General (Ag. Extension) of Indian Council of Agricultural Research New Delhi to Sri Mehboob Zahedi, M.P. West Bengal which reads as follows :- “Dr. P.Das, Deputy Director General (Ag. Extension) To Sri Mehboob Zahedi M.P. West Bengal. DO No.4-28/97-AEI Dated 14th January, 2004 Sir, This has the reference to your DO letter No. Nil dated Nil regarding transfer of two scientists of Ramshai KVK, Jalpaiguri under West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (WBUA & F.S) as lecturer of their concerned discipline. The matter has been examined in the council and inform you that since the KVKs has been functioning under WBUA & F.S, the staffs of the KVK are also borne on the establishment of the University. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the vice-chancellor of the University requesting him to take appropriate action on the matter on urgent basis. Yours faithfully, Sd/- P. Das Issued 14.1.04” 13. Mr. Mukherjee also drew Court’s attention to the letter of KVK dated 14th January, 2003 written by Zonal Co-ordinator ((I/C), Zone-II to the Director of Research Extension & Farm West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences, Belgachia, Kolkata-700 037 thereby requesting him to transfer training associate in the field of fishery and animal health. Mr. Mukherjee also drew Court’s attention to the letter of KVK dated 14th January, 2003 written by Zonal Co-ordinator ((I/C), Zone-II to the Director of Research Extension & Farm West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences, Belgachia, Kolkata-700 037 thereby requesting him to transfer training associate in the field of fishery and animal health. In the said letter inter-alia it is written as follows :- “KVK/1-G/1997/2078 Dated : 14.1.2003 To The Director of Research Extension & Farm W. Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences Kshudiram Bose Sarani, Belgachia Kolkata-700 037. Sub : Request for transferring two Training Associates in the field of Fishery and Animal Health. Sir, Two Training Associates in the field of Fishery and Animal Health were recruited for KVK, Jalpaiguri about a year back. They are drawing salary from KVK budget till date. They are still kept at your headquarter. We have seen in the Annual Report (Sept.2001 to Oct. 2002) that there was no activity of fishery science during the year. If necessary they may be kept at your HQ but their salary may not be drawn from the KVK budget. The period for which they are staying at the HQ, for which their salary was drawn from KVK budget may please be refunded. It is further brought to your kind notice as per ICAR directives no KVK staff to be transferred without the prior approval of ICAR Therefore I would request you to kindly transfer them immediately from the HQ to KVK, Jalpaiguri for the smooth running of the KVK. Kindly reply immediately. Yours faithfully (S.K. Roy) Zonal Coordinator (I/C), Zone-II” In response to that facts issued by coordinator of KVK Zone-II newly appointed Vice Chancellor, respondent no.2 herein arbitrarily issued the impugned order of cancellation of the transfer order dated 6th January, 2003. 14. Mr. Mukherjee further vehemently urged that the petitioner’s transfer from the post of training associate (Fishery Science), KVK Ramsai to the post of lecturer in the department of Acquaculture Faculty of Fishery Science at Mohanpur is not a transfer simpliciter as envisaged under Section 5 (I) (d) of the statute but the same is a transfer with the new assignment as lecturer under the power as laid down in Section 10 (6) of the said Act of 1995 and such new assignment cannot be re-called or withdrawn or varied by the respondent no.2. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the post of the training associate and the post of lecturer are of same category and rank. The pay scale of the said two posts are equal or same and the required qualification for the said two posts are also same. 16. Mr. Mukherjee also strongly argued that the ICAR which is the monitoring authority of KVK is not empowered to concern itself with the service condition of the staff of the respondent university. Therefore, zonal coordinator of ICAR has not been delegated with any power to make himself concerned with the service affairs of the cadre of the respondent no.1. 17. Mr. Mukherjee also emphatically argued that there are so many instances that employees/staffs from KVK have been transferred/shifted to Bidhanchandra Krishi Vidyalaya. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relied on a portion of Paragraph 5 of the reply which is quoted below :- “(I) Dr. C. Satpathi (Agro Ento) from Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kalimpong to Sekhampur Campus of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya; (II) Dr. M. Chettri (Agro) from Krishi Vigyan Kendra Kalimpong to the main Campus of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya at Mohanpur ; (III) Dr. U. Thapa from Krishi Vigyan Kendra Kalimpong to the main Campus of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya, Mohanpur ; (IV) Dr. A. Roy (Agro. Extn). From Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kalimpong to Sekhampur Campus of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya : (V) Dr. R. Nath (Agro-Forestry) from Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kalimpong to Jhargram Campus of Uttar Banga Krishi Viswas Vidyalaya : (VI) Dr. A. Halder has been granted study leave for Ph.D. studies to NDRI by Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya and Uttar Banga Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya ; (VII) Sri. B.R. Sharma (Plant Protection) from Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kalimpong to the Regional Research Station, Kalimpong to the Regional Research Station, Kalimpong under the Uttar Banga Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya. There is also one more instance of such transfer from Kalimpong Krishi Vigyan Kendra, to the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswas Vidyalaya, of a Training Associate (Animal Sciences) who is now working on transfer from Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya in the Main Campus at Belgachia of WBUA & FS, the respondent no.1”. 18. Mr. Mukherjee also vehemently urged that the respondent authority has made out a new case in the affidavit-in-opposition which is not permissible in law. 19. Mr. 18. Mr. Mukherjee also vehemently urged that the respondent authority has made out a new case in the affidavit-in-opposition which is not permissible in law. 19. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that by filling affidavit authority cannot develop or deviate from the point mentioned in the impugned order. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relied on a Apex Court decision reported in AIR 1978 (SC) Page-851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others) 20. Mr. Mukherjee further strongly argued that the impugned act of the respondent authority is very much contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On this point Mr. Mukherjee relied on a Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in 1979 (SC) Page 429 Paragraphs-24 and 26 (The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and another vs D.B. Belliappa) which are quoted below :- “Para-24-Conversely, if the services of temporary Government servant are terminated, arbitrarily, and not on the ground of his unsuitability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service, a question of unfair discrimination may arise, notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service, the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the employment. Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity, or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of the service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the Court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action. Excepting, perhaps, in cases analogous to those covered by Art. 311 (2), Proviso © the authority cannot withhold such information from the Court on the lame excuse, that the impugned order is purely administrative and not judicial, having been passed in exercise of its administrative discretion under the rules governing the conditions of the service. “The giving of reasons”, as Lord Denning put it in Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148 “is one of the fundamentals of good administration” and, to recall the words of this Court in Khudi Ram v. State of West Bengal (1975) 2 SCR 832 at P.845: ( AIR 1975 SC 550 at p. 558) in a Government of laws “there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial review ability”. The executive, no less than the judiciary, is under a general duty to act fairly. Indeed, fairness founded on reason is the essence of the guarantee epitomized in Arts 14 & 16. Para-26- Coming back to the point, we have a vague feeling that it was, perhaps, open to the appellant to say in view of the complaint alluded to in the show-cause notice against the integrity and fidelity of the respondent, that the former had lost confidence in the latter and considered him unsuitable to be continued in the post which was one of trust and confidence. But it will be hazardous for us to base our decision on any such speculation, when the appellant, himself instead of taking any such plea, has with obdurate persistency stuck to the position that the respondent’s service has been terminated without any reason which comes perilously near to admitting that the power reserved to the employer under the conditions of the employment, has been exercised arbitrarily." 21. Before concluding his argument Mr. Mukherjee summarized his submission saying that since the impugned order is very much contrary to Article 14, 16 and also against the law therefore, that order is not sustainable. Accordingly, Mr. Mukherjee prayed that the impugned order should be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 22. Per contra, Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that Krisi Vigyna Kendra is a ICAR project. It is funded by ICAR. ICAR also sanctions various posts for such KVK unit wise. Mr. Gupta also contended that ICAR has its guidelines for KVK. 23. Mr. Gupta further strongly argued that the then Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 6th January, 2003 posted the petitioner from training associate of KVK. Ramsai, Jalpaiguri to the post of lecturer of the University when admittedly there was no vacancy of such post. Furthermore, Mr. Gupta contended that to facilitate/accommodate the petitioner the then Vice Chancellor kept the vacant post of Reader in lien, thereby arbitrarily exercising the power under the 10 (6) of WBUA and FS Act, 1995. 24. Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that vide letter dated 14th January, 2003 ICAR raised objection to such posting of the petitioner and requested the university to transfer him back to the KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri. 24. Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that vide letter dated 14th January, 2003 ICAR raised objection to such posting of the petitioner and requested the university to transfer him back to the KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri. Thereafter the newly appointed Vice Chancellor restored the original position thereby canceling the transfer order and directing the petitioner and another to join and report to KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri. 25. Mr. Gupta further contended that this decision was taken by exercising Section 10 (6) of WBUA and FS Act, 1995. Such decision was subsequently accepted on 10th February, 2003 unanimously by the executive council of the university. 26. Mr. Gupta also submitted that pursuant to the said order dated 10th February, 2003 the other employee who was illegally transferred to the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vidyalay joined his original post at KVK, Ramsai. But the petitioner did not obey the order dated 10th February, 2003, on the contrary the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the said order of transfer dated 10th February, 2003. 27. Mr. Gupta further drew my attention to the advertisement which reveals that advertisement was made for the post of training associate under KVK, Ramsai purely on temporary basis. 28. Mr. Gupta emphasized his argument thereby submitting that petitioner being the temporary training associate of KVK is trying to convert himself as a lecturer against one permanent post of the university which is barred in law. 29. Mr. Gupta also vehemently argued that the petitioner being the favourite child of the then Chancellor was illegally favoured by the order dated 6th January, 2003 thereby posting him from training associate of KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri to the post of permanent lecturer of the university when there was no vacant post at all. 30. Mr. Gupta also contended that without following the due process of selection no one can suo-moto appoint a person to the post of lecturer when admittedly no vacancy was declared by the university for filling up such post. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer by the then Vice Chancellor just a day prior to his retirement on 7th January, 2003 (the then Vice Chancellor A. K. Bhattacharya retired from the post) is nothing but a clear case of favoritism which cannot be sustained. Such transfer is wholly illegal and absolutely contrary to the existing rules for appointment of a lecturer. 31. Mr. Such transfer is wholly illegal and absolutely contrary to the existing rules for appointment of a lecturer. 31. Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that an order of transfer can always be modified/altered/recalled/cancelled by the competent authority but unfortunately here the initial order of transfer being wholly illegal, unauthorized and unwarranted the same is liable to be cancelled. But this cancellation order could not be served upon the petitioner despite best effort made by the authority to serve the same. 32. Mr. Gupta emphasized his argument by submitting that it would reveal that every time the service was returned with the postal remarks ‘Refused’. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta relied on Section 27 of the Indian Post and Telegraph Act and also Section 28 of the West Bengal General Clauses which are quoted below :- “Section 27-Power to deal with postal articles from abroad bearing fictitious or previously used stamps.- (1) Where a postal article is received by post from any place beyond the limits of India- (a) bearing a fictitious postage stamp, that is to say, any facsimile or imitation or representation of a postage stamp, or (b) Purporting to be prepaid with any postage stamp which has been previously used to prepay any other postal article, the officer in charge of the post office at which the postal article is received, shall send a notice to the addressee inviting him to attend, wither in person or by agent, within a specified time at the post office to receive delivery of the postal article. (2) If the addressee or his agent attends at the post office within the time specified in the notice and consents to make known to the officer in charge of the post office the name and address of the sender of the postal article and to redeliver to the officer aforesaid the portion of the postal article which bears the address and the fictitious or previously used postage stamp, or, if the postal article is inseparable from the stamp, the entire postal article, the postal article shall be delivered to the addressee or his agent. (3) If the addressee or his agent fails to attend at the post office within the time specified in the notice, or having attended within that time, refuses to make known the name and address of the sender or to redeliver the postal article or portion thereof as required by subsection (2), the postal article shall not be delivered to him, but shall be disposed of in such manner as the Central Government may direct.” “Section-28-Meaning of service by post-Where any Bengal Act or West Bengal Act, made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve"” or either of the expressions "“give"” or "“end"” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." 33. On the point of good service Mr. Gupta relied on one Apex Court decision reported in 1995 (Suppl.) (3) SCC Page-518 Paragraph-2 (State of Kerala And Others vs T.K. Udaya Sankaran And Others). Mr. Gupta also referred to the Paragraph-3 of Acts, Rules and Orders : West Bengal Act XVII of 1976 The West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 which is quoted below :- “3.-No post to be created or appointment made without state government approval:” Therefore, Mr. Gupta argued that since no vacancy of lecturer post was declared or no new lecturer post was created after approval of the Government the appointment of the petitioner to a lecturer post as per the desire of the then Vice Chancellor cannot be acted upon. Accordingly that order dated 6th January, 2003 is also not sustainable in law. 34. Mr. Gupta further contended that the pay scale of the KVK staff/employees is approved by the ICAR, not by the university. 35. Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that the petitioner being the KVK staff couldn’t be directly transferred to the university in a post of lecturer without consent of the ICAR. If such illegal transfer of the petitioner vide order dated 6th January, 2003 is accepted then the rule for regular recruitment process will be rendered as scrap paper. 35. Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that the petitioner being the KVK staff couldn’t be directly transferred to the university in a post of lecturer without consent of the ICAR. If such illegal transfer of the petitioner vide order dated 6th January, 2003 is accepted then the rule for regular recruitment process will be rendered as scrap paper. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta relied on a Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in 2000 (6) SCC Page-224 Paragraphs-52 and 58 ( Lily Thomas And Others vs Union of India And Others) 36. Before parting with his argument Mr. Gupta submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of transfer dated 10th February, 2003 issued by the respondent no.2 which deserves interference of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. Decision with Reasons 37. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records and judgments cited as above I find that initially the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the advertisement for the post of training associate purely on temporary basis under KVK. But by the order dated 6th January, 2003 the petitioner was posted as lecturer of the university by the then Vice Chancellor. Just to accommodate the petitioner to that post the Vice Chancellor kept the vacant post of Reader in lien thereby exercising power under Section 10 (6) of WBUA and FS Act, 1995. Admittedly at that material point of time there was no vacancy for the lecturer of the said university. Furthermore, no advertisement was published to fill up any post of lecturer for the said vacancy. It is, therefore, surprising how and what manner the then Vice Chancellor posted the petitioner to the lecturer post of the said university thereby keeping the vacant post of Reader in lien. Not only that just to accommodate the petitioner the then Vice Chancellor just a day before his retirement by exercising power under Section 10 (6) of WBUA and FS Act, 1995, posted the petitioner to the lecturer post of the said university though admittedly no lecturer post was lying vacant at the said university at that point of time. 38. Not only that just to accommodate the petitioner the then Vice Chancellor just a day before his retirement by exercising power under Section 10 (6) of WBUA and FS Act, 1995, posted the petitioner to the lecturer post of the said university though admittedly no lecturer post was lying vacant at the said university at that point of time. 38. After the new Vice Chancellor joined on 8th January, 2003 the letter dated 4th January, 2003 issued by ICAR to transfer back the petitioner and other employees to KVK Ramsai who have been posted to the university, the newly appointed Vice Chancellor upon exercising the power under 10 (6) of WBUA and FS Act, 1995 took a decision to transfer back the petitioner and another employee to their parent post of temporary training associate of the KVK. That decision was accepted unanimously by the executive council of the said university on 10th February, 2003. It is also evident from record that respondent authority tried their level best to serve the order of transfer to the petitioner but every time it was returned with postal remark ‘Refused”. The act of the then Vice Chancellor, A.K. Bhattacharya, hurriedly taking a decision after exercising power under Section 10 (6) of the said Act to post the petitioner as a lecturer of the said university just one day prior to his retirement creates a cloud of doubt in the mind of the Court. At that point of time admittedly there was no advertisement published for such post of lecturer nor any post of lecturer fell vacant in the said university. 39. Court cannot ignore the fact that when admittedly there is no vacant post of lecturer in the said university then the then Vice Chancellor namely A.K. Bhattacharya ought not have posted the petitioner as lecturer of the said university by exercising power under Section 10 (6) of the said Act. 40. I also find that decision taken on 6th January, 2003 to post the petitioner as a lecturer under the said university by the then Vice Chancellor was never placed before the executive council. In my opinion in the service jurisprudence the person who has been temporarily appointed as training associate under KVK, Ramsai Jalpaiguri cannot be elevated as a lecturer against one permanent post of a university without following the procedure for recruitment of such post. In my opinion in the service jurisprudence the person who has been temporarily appointed as training associate under KVK, Ramsai Jalpaiguri cannot be elevated as a lecturer against one permanent post of a university without following the procedure for recruitment of such post. It is apposite to mention that under the KVK guidelines for recruitment and placement of staff one should obey the following procedure: “Recruitment and Placement of Staff- The scientists, technical and supporting staff are the backbone of the KVK. This is why utmost care has to be taken in their selection and placement. The innovative institutions like Krishi Vigyan Kendras require innovative knowledgeable and committed staff. The recruitment of the staff should be done by the host institutions for the sanctioned posts and as per the guidelines provided by the Council. The recruitment policy and procedure shall vary depending upon the type of institutions in which KVKs have been sanctioned. For example, the recruitment of the staff in the KVKs under ICAR institutes shall be done by the ICAR recruitment policies and procedures. In case of KVKs under the State Agril. Universities, the recruitment of staff shall be made following the recruitment policies and procedures of concerned State Agril. University. However, it is imperative for these ICAR institutes and State Agril. Universities to invite a representative of the Division of Agricultural Extension, ICAR in the Selection/Recruitment Committee.” But in the present case that Rule/Procedure was not followed. 41. I also cannot ignore the fact that it is trite law in the service jurisprudence that without following the recruitment Rules/Procedure as laid down no one could be appointed as lecturer or in any other post at the sweet-will of his superior. It would not out of place to mention that accepting the transfer order dated 10th February, 2003 the other employee who was also posted under the said university along with the petitioner has returned to his parent post under KVK Ramsai, Jalpaiguri barring the petitioner and thus accepted the transfer order. Further, in my considered view the posting of the petitioner as a lecturer of the said university from the post of training associate under KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 42. Now I have to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee. Further, in my considered view the posting of the petitioner as a lecturer of the said university from the post of training associate under KVK, Ramsai, Jalpaiguri cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 42. Now I have to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee. In Government Brach Press case (surpa) is not applicable as the respondent authority tried their level best to serve the transfer order dated 10th February, 2003 upon the petitioner but it is evident that every time it was returned un-served with the postal remark “Refused”. In the cited case in the impugned order no reason was assigned by the authority therefore and thus it was set aside by the Hon’ble Court. But the subject matter of the present case is completely different. 43. In the present case the petitioner was illegally given appointed in the post of lecturer of the said university from the post of training associate of KVK Ramsai without following the due process of recruitment rules for the said post of lecturer. Therefore, though the cited Government Branch Press case (supra) is a good law but it has no manner of application in the present case in hand. Regarding Mohinder Singh Gill case (supra) in my considered view the impugned order dated 10th February, 2003 was never received by the petitioner therefore it is not expected that petitioner knows the contents of the said impugned order dated 10th February, 2003. That being the scenario the petitioner cannot claim that respondent authority developed their case in the affidavit beyond the scope of the order dated 10th February, 2003. Therefore, in my considered view the Mohinder Singh Gill case (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 44. Accordingly in my considered view the cancellation of the transfer order dated 6th January, 2003 by the then Vice Chancellor of University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, respondent no.2 vide the impugned order dated 10th February, 2003 has no ambiguity, infirmity or illegality which deserves interference by this Hon’ble Court. 45. Resultantly the W.P No.3929 (W) of 2003 stands dismissed. Accordingly, CAN 3269 of 2016 is also dismissed without any order as to costs.