Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 823 (ALL)

Somu Singh v. Union Of India

2020-04-30

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners in the present petition have mainly prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a). a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the ECR No.108 passed by Executive Council, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi in its meeting dated 7.6.19, as circulated by circular dated 8.7.19, issued by Section Officer, Executive Council Cell (Annexure No.12). (b). a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the communications dated 13.9.19 and 16.9.19 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration-Teaching) and the Professor Incharge, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Barkaccha, Mirzapur respectively (Annexure Nos.13 & 14); (c). a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners at Faculty of Education, Banaras Hindu University, Kamachha, Varanasi, and to pay the petitioners their regular monthly salary on the said post regularly every month.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as 'University') notified an advertisement bearing No.01/2009-10 in the newspaper namely 'Employment News' dated 30th May, 2009 inviting applications for a large number of teaching posts in different departments. 4. The said advertisement included post of Lecturer in Education (Hindi) bearing Post Code No.3742; one post of Lecturer in Education (Sanskrit) bearing Post Code No.3743; one post of Lecturer in Education (Computer Science) bearing Post Code No.3744; one post of Lecturer in Education (Political Science/History/Geography/Economics) bearing Post Code No.3745; post of Lecturer in Education bearing Post Code No.3748 for Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Barkachha, Mirzapur and one post of Lecturer in Education (Mathematics) bearing Post Code No.3746 for Mahila Mahavidyalaya. 5. The petitioner no.1, Dr. Somu Singh being eligible applied under the Physically Handicap category for the post of Lecturer in Education bearing Post Code No.3748. Petitioner no.2, Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh applied for consideration against the post of Lecturer in Education (Political Science/History/Geography/Economics) bearing Post Code No.3745, and petitioner no.3, Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, applied for being considered for the post of Lecturer in Education (Mathematics) bearing Post Code No.3746. 6. The petitioners were issued interview letters for appearing before the Selection Committee. Petitioner no.2, Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh applied for consideration against the post of Lecturer in Education (Political Science/History/Geography/Economics) bearing Post Code No.3745, and petitioner no.3, Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, applied for being considered for the post of Lecturer in Education (Mathematics) bearing Post Code No.3746. 6. The petitioners were issued interview letters for appearing before the Selection Committee. Each of the petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee on the scheduled date and were recommended for appointment. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by the Executive Council. 7. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 were appointed by appointment letter dated 16.04.2010 while petitioner no.3 was appointed by appointment letter dated 16.04.2010/01.07.2010 issued by Deputy Registrar (Recruitment & Assessment Cell), University. All the petitioners were appointed as Lecturer in Education in Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Barkachha, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as 'RGSC'). As per the appointment letter, petitioners were directed to report for duty in the enclosed proforma to the Dean Faculty of Education, main campus at the University within one month from the date of issue of the letter. 8. The Head and Dean of the Education Department of the University by letter dated 17.04.2010 directed the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to report immediately to the O.S.D./B.Ed. Course Coordinator, RGSC for further instructions. The petitioner no.3 was directed by the Dean, Faculty of Education to report to the O.S.D./B.Ed. Course Coordinator of RGSC for joining. The petitioners pursuant to the direction of Head and Dean of the Education Department reported to the O.S.D./B.Ed. Course Coordinator of RGSC and started discharging their duties at RGSC. 9. It transpires from the record that The National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE') on 26.04.2017 sent a communication to the Registrar of the University taking objection against the B.Ed. course being run at RGSC. The aforesaid communication also recorded the fact that by an order dated 30.09.1997 passed by NCTE, the recognition had been accorded for running of B.Ed. course in the Faculty of Education of the University at Kamachha, Varanasi with an annual intake of 180 seats, and for an additional intake of 100 seats in B.Ed. course was granted by subsequent order dated 09.09.2006, therefore, total intake is 280 seats. The said communication also recites that NCTE has not granted recognition for its South Campus situated at RGSC. course was granted by subsequent order dated 09.09.2006, therefore, total intake is 280 seats. The said communication also recites that NCTE has not granted recognition for its South Campus situated at RGSC. Thereafter, on 03.08.2018, the Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, NCTE communicated its objection to the University against running of B.Ed. course at RGSC without prior approval of NCTE. 10. Subsequently, the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 287th meeting held from 18-20.07.2018 vide item no.91 decided for issuing a show cause notice to the University under Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993. 11. According to the petitioners, the Undergraduate Entrance Test 2018 Information Bulletin did not indicate even a single seat in the Faculty of Education for admission to RGSC and no fresh admissions were made to B.Ed. course at RGSC during the academic session 201819 and 2019-20. The students, who had been admitted to B.Ed. first year course during the academic session 2017-18 completed their studies in the second year of B.Ed. course during the academic session 2018-19 and their session came to an end in May, 2019. 12. The Dean, Faculty of Education of the University on 13.05.2019 issued a communication to each of the petitioners asking them to discharge their duties from 21.05.2019 at Faculty of Education, main campus of the University at Kamachha, Varanasi. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, each of the petitioners submitted their joining on 21.05.2019 at Faculty of Education, main campus of the University at Kamachha, Varanasi. 13. It appears that the Executive Council in a meeting held on 07.06.2019 passed a resolution vide item no.2 being ECR 108 that the teachers and employees appointed to teach different courses at RGSC should not be transferred to the Main Campus even if all the courses had to be closed, and the teachers appointed therein should be asked to discharge their duties in other courses being run at RGSC. 14. The Assistant Registrar (Administration) on 13.09.2019 issued a communication to the Dean, Faculty of Education asking him to relieve the teachers of education who were posted at RGSC and are presently working in the Faculty of Education at the main campus of the University for joining back at RGSC. Pursuant thereto, Professor In-charge, RGSC on 16.09.2019 sent a communication to the Dean, Faculty of Education at main campus of the University for relieving the teachers of education for being posted at RGSC. Pursuant thereto, Professor In-charge, RGSC on 16.09.2019 sent a communication to the Dean, Faculty of Education at main campus of the University for relieving the teachers of education for being posted at RGSC. 15. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, the course of B.Ed. has been closed at RGSC in view of objection raised by the NCTE and no students in the B.Ed. course have been admitted since 2018, yet petitioners are being forced to report back at RGSC when there is no work for the petitioners as they are eligible and qualified in their specialty to teach students of education. Their further grievance is that if they are precluded from imparting education in their specialty, they would not be able to fulfill the norms prescribed by UGC for the grant of Career Advancement Scheme. Thus, the action of respondent would seriously prejudice the chance of promotion of petitioners and would jeopardize the carrier of the petitioners. 16. The petitioner has also claimed parity with Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain who were also deputed for discharging their duties at RGSC and were brought to the main faculty of University and have been discharging their duties at the main faculty. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioners have prayed for the relief extracted above. 17. The respondent-University filed counter affidavit contending inter alia that petitioners were appointed pursuant to an advertisement notifying the posts for selection and appointment at RGSC. It is further stated that appointment letters of the petitioners clearly specified the place of posting at RGSC. The respondent-University further averred that it is the domain and the prerogative of the employer to take work from the petitioner as and when it is required, and the petitioners have no right to choose the place of working specially when the sanctioned post against which petitioners have been appointed is at RGSC. The respondent-University also pleaded that petitioners are under administrative control of the Professor Incharge, RGSC and salary of the petitioners are also drawn from RGSC. The respondent-University further pleaded that Dr. The respondent-University also pleaded that petitioners are under administrative control of the Professor Incharge, RGSC and salary of the petitioners are also drawn from RGSC. The respondent-University further pleaded that Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain, who applied for the post of Professor pursuant to an Advertisement No.02/2005/06 dated 08.10.2005 notifying the selection and appointment for the post at the main campus, were issued appointment letters in respect of the faculty of education at the main campus of the University at Kamachha, Varanasi, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with them. 18. The petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit stating that they are qualified and have been selected for imparting instructions in B.Ed. course in the faculty of education which course has been stopped at RGSC and is no longer functional. The petitioners are neither equipped nor qualified for teaching any other subject. It is further stated that after stoppage of teaching in B.Ed. course at RGSC where studies were being imparted to 50 students, the entire teaching work for B.Ed. course for complete annual intake of 50 students would continue at the main campus. It is also averred that under the Career Advancement Scheme various norms are prescribed by the UGC which includes award of marks on every assessment year which would be an impossibility in case the petitioners are deprived from imparting teaching in B.Ed. course. 19. The petitioners through rejoinder affidavit have also brought on record the appointment letter of Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Dr. Shantanu Kumar Swain, who applied for selection and appointment for the post of Professor Incharge at RGSC against Advertisement No.02/2005/06 which shows that they were posted at RGSC, but have been brought back to the main faculty Kamachha, Varanasi. 20. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the action of the respondent-university in posting the petitioners back to RGSC is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that it is evident from the record that NCTE never accorded permission to the University to run B.Ed. course at RGSC, and the said course was run by the University at RGSC without any approval of the NCTE. He submits that the NCTE has accorded approval of total intake of 280 seats for the faculty of education at the main campus of the University. course at RGSC, and the said course was run by the University at RGSC without any approval of the NCTE. He submits that the NCTE has accorded approval of total intake of 280 seats for the faculty of education at the main campus of the University. Thus, he submits that though, the petitioners were posted at RGSC, but the faculty of education run at RGSC was part and parcel of the main faculty of education of the main campus of the University at Varanasi, accordingly, the stand of the University that petitioners have been appointed against the sanctioned post of the faculty of education at RGSC is incorrect and against the record. 21. He submits that University has not brought anything on record to indicate that NCTE has approved the intake of 50 seats for imparting teaching in faculty of education at RGSC rather it is manifest from the record that on objection being raised by the NCTE, the University had to stop classes in faculty of education at RGSC. He submits that the fact that at present no education is being imparted at the faculty of education at RGSC is not disputed b the University. He submits that petitioners are qualified and eligible to teach students in education in their specialized subjects and are not equipped to teach other subjects, therefore, there is no work for the petitioners at RGSC, and for them to continue at RGSC would seriously prejudice their career, as they would be deprived to acquire various eligibility criteria prescribed by the UGC to avail the benefit under Career Advancement Scheme. 22. He further submits that petitioners have stated in paragraph 36 of the writ petition that there exists a shortage of six Assistant Professor for Social Science and three Assistant Professor for Mathematics, therefore, petitioners can be easily adjusted on the aforesaid vacant posts as faculty at RGSC is in fact a part and parcel of faculty of education of main campus of the University. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon memorandum dated 28.06.2017 issued by Registrar of the University which states that 'The permanent teachers appointed at RGSC may be included as members in various bodies like DRC, Board of Examiners, etc. as per existing norms.' 23. He further submits that Dr. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon memorandum dated 28.06.2017 issued by Registrar of the University which states that 'The permanent teachers appointed at RGSC may be included as members in various bodies like DRC, Board of Examiners, etc. as per existing norms.' 23. He further submits that Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain, who have been posted and discharging their duties at RGSC have been brought back to the main faculty of the University and Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla is presently Head and Dean of faculty of education. Thus, the submission is that petitioners are also identically circumstanced, and therefore, are entitled to be treated alike and thus, they should be posted at faculty of education at main campus of the University. He further submits that the University has not brought on record any application wherefrom it can be culled out that University would obtain necessary permission to run B.Ed. course at RGSC. He further submits that Regulation 5 of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure), Regulations, 2009, which prescribes the manner of making application and time limit for permission to run classes in particular subject, provides that duly completed applications in all respect may be submitted to the Regional Committee during the period from the 1st September till 31st of October of the preceding year to the academic session for which recognition has been sought. He submits that no such application has been submitted by the respondents within the prescribed time under Regulation 5(4) of Rules, 2009, therefore, it is evident that University is not going to start faculty of education at RGSC in near future. 24. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has placed advertisement against which petitioners have been appointed to contend that the appointment of petitioners have been made for RGSC, and therefore, they cannot be adjusted or absorbed in the faculty of education at the main campus of the University. He further contends that it is the domain of the employer to take work from his employee as and when it is required and employee have no right to choose the place of working specially when the sanctioned post against which petitioners have been appointed is at RGSC. He further contends that it is the domain of the employer to take work from his employee as and when it is required and employee have no right to choose the place of working specially when the sanctioned post against which petitioners have been appointed is at RGSC. He contends that the post of Lecturer in education on which petitioners have been appointed still exists at RGSC, hence, the petitioners cannot make any hue and cry asking them to join at RGSC. He submits that case of Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain with whom petitioners have claimed parity is not identical to that of petitioners inasmuch as Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain have been appointed pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2005/06 notifying the selection and appointment for the post at main campus. Thus, he submits that petitioners do not have any right to be posted at the main faculty of the University. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed reliance upon Rule 4 of the Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1990') to contend that petitioners have been redeployed in accordance with the aforesaid rules. It is also contended that B.Ed course at RGSC is temporarily suspended and faculty of B.Ed. at RGSC has not yet closed. He submits that petitioners have been appointed against the sanctioned post at RGSC, and if they are allowed to be accommodated at the main faculty of the University that would amount to allowing backdoor entry of the petitioners in the main campus of the University. 26. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 27. The issue for determination in the present petition is as to whether the decision of the University asking the petitioners to report back at RGSC is arbitrary and discriminatory. 28. The facts as emerge from the record are that petitioner nos.1 & 2 have been appointed as Lecturer in the Faculty of Education in different streams by appointment letter dated 16.04.2010 and petitioner no.3 was appointed by appointment letter dated 28.06.2010. As per appointment letter, the petitioners were asked to report for duty in the prescribed proforma to the Dean, Faculty of Education, at the main campus of the University, though their appointment was as Lecturer in the faculty of education at RGSC. As per appointment letter, the petitioners were asked to report for duty in the prescribed proforma to the Dean, Faculty of Education, at the main campus of the University, though their appointment was as Lecturer in the faculty of education at RGSC. Pursuant to the appointment letters, petitioners reported for joining to the Head and Dean of the faculty of education at the main campus of the University at Kamachha, Varanasi. 29. The petitioners, thereafter, reported to the O.S.D./B.Ed. Course Coordinator, RGSC in pursuance to the office order dated 17.04.2010 and have been discharging their duties as Lecturer in the faculty of education at RGSC. Further, the letter dated 26th April, 2017 of the Under Secretary (Inspection), NCTE addressed to the Registrar of the University, Kamachha, Varanasi records that recognition for B.Ed. course was granted to the University, Kamachha, Varanasi U.P. vide order No.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-25/97/4957 dated 30.09.1997 with an annual intake of 180 seats. The said letter also records that additional annual intake of 100 seats in B.Ed. course was granted vide order No.NRC/NCTE/F-7/5677-5703 dated 09.09.2006, thus, total intake is 280 seats. The said letter also specifically records that NRC, NCTE has not granted recognition for its south campus situated at RGSC. The University does not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid letter dated 26.04.2017 and the show cause notice dated 03.08.2018 and decision of the NRC, NCTE in the 287th meeting vide Item No.91 resolving to issue show cause notice to the University as to how it had run B.Ed. course at RGSC without approval of the NCTE. 30. The aforesaid correspondence between the University and the NCTE clearly reveals that NCTE has not granted any approval or recognition to the University to run B.Ed. course at RGSC. The University has not made any averment in the counter affidavit explaining as to how it had run B.Ed. course at RGSC without any approval or recognition granted by the NCTE. Thus, it can safely be culled out that intake of 280 seats of students has been approved by the NCTE to run B.Ed. course at the main faculty of University at Kamachha, Varanasi. 31. The petitioners have made specific averment in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that after 2018, no fresh admissions were made during the academic session 2018-19 & 2019-20 at RGSC and no teaching work in the education department is taking place. course at the main faculty of University at Kamachha, Varanasi. 31. The petitioners have made specific averment in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that after 2018, no fresh admissions were made during the academic session 2018-19 & 2019-20 at RGSC and no teaching work in the education department is taking place. The University in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit has not denied the averments made by the petitioners in paragraph 23 of the writ petition. As there was no permission or approval by the NCTE to run B.Ed. course at RGSC, therefore, it implies that there cannot be any post sanctioned for the department of education at RGSC. 32. The petitioners have also stated in paragraph 36 of the writ petition that there exists a shortage of six Assistant Professor for Social Science and three post for Assistant Professor for Mathematics. The said fact has also not been denied by the University in the counter affidavit. Though, the University has taken specific objection in the counter affidavit that appointment of the petitioners have been made against the post at RGSC, but it has not made any averment in the counter affidavit nor filed any document on record to demonstrate that separate posts have been sanctioned for the Faculty of Education at RGSC. 33. Further, the University has tried to defend its action against the allegation of discrimination made by the petitioner by stating that Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain, though posted at RGSC, were appointed against the post at the main campus of the University at Barkachha as is evident from the Advertisement No.02/2005/06 that the posts were advertised for the main campus of the University, Kamachha Varanasi. Accordingly, the case of petitioners are not identical to Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain inasmuch as the post notified for selection against the Advertisement No. 01/2009-10 pursuant to which petitioners were appointed were for the Faculty of Education at RGSC. 34. A perusal of the Advertisement No. 01/2009-10 pursuant to which petitioners have been appointed shows that the posts were advertised for RGSC, but the facts detailed above clearly shows that B.Ed. course at RGSC was being run without the approval of the NCTE. 34. A perusal of the Advertisement No. 01/2009-10 pursuant to which petitioners have been appointed shows that the posts were advertised for RGSC, but the facts detailed above clearly shows that B.Ed. course at RGSC was being run without the approval of the NCTE. It is also manifest from the various correspondence, referred above, between the University and the NCTE that there was no recognition by the NCTE granting permission to the University to run B.Ed. course at RGSC. The intake of 280 students as it is evident from the letter of Under Secretary (Inspection), NCTE dated 26.04.2017 was approved to run B.Ed. course at the faculty of education at the main campus of the University, therefore, in such factual backdrop, it is difficult to understand as to how the posts have been sanctioned for the faculty of education at RGSC for which no permission was granted by the NCTE to run B.Ed. course, therefore, the only conclusion which can be derived from the facts in the present case is that the petitioners were appointed against the posts sanctioned at Faculty of Education at the University, Kamachha Varanasi, more so, when the University has not explained in the counter affidavit as to how the posts at RGSC in the faculty of education were sanctioned when there was no permission by the NCTE to run B.Ed. course at RGSC. 35. Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in the defence of the University that case of petitioners are not identical to that of Dr. Rajesh Prasad Shukla and Professor Shantanu Kumar Swain as it is manifest from the record that the faculty of education at RGSC is part and parcel of the faculty of education at the main campus of the University and the petitioners could be appointed on the sanctioned post in the faculty of education at the main campus of the University. 36. It is also worth to notice that petitioners in paragraph 40 of the writ petition have stated that the course of B.P.Ed. (Bachelor of Physical Education) was also commenced at South Campus, Barkachha, and on being objection taken by the NCTE, the B.P.Ed. course at South Campus, Barkachha was closed and the staff engaged at South Campus in the faculty of B.P.Ed has been allowed to function at main campus of the University, Kamachha Varanasi. (Bachelor of Physical Education) was also commenced at South Campus, Barkachha, and on being objection taken by the NCTE, the B.P.Ed. course at South Campus, Barkachha was closed and the staff engaged at South Campus in the faculty of B.P.Ed has been allowed to function at main campus of the University, Kamachha Varanasi. The aforesaid paragraph has been replied by the University in paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit wherein University has not denied the averments made by the petitioners in paragraph 40 of the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid fact also, the action of university is discriminatory and arbitrary in asking the petitioner to report at RGSC inasmuch as once the University has allowed the staff of B.P.Ed. to discharge their duties at main campus after the closure of the B.P.Ed. Course at the South Campus, the petitioners who are similarly placed are entitled to discharge their duties at the Main Campus of the University. 37. Now, coming to the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the University that it is the domain of the employer that University should take work from petitioners as and when it is required and petitioners have no right to choose the place of working. It is no doubt true that University has prerogative to take work from the petitioners as and when it is required and petitioners have no right to be posted at the main campus at University, Varanasi, but this prerogative is subject to certain limitations and restrictions that it should be exercised in consonance with the principle of right to equality and fairness. 38. The University being instrumentality of the state should act as a model employer and should not treat its employees unequally, arbitrarily or to put them in a position which would seriously prejudice and jeopardize the future of its employees. In the present case, it is not in dispute that B.Ed. course at RGSC has been stopped. The University did not have any permission from the NCTE to run B.Ed. courses at RGSC. As on today, there is no work in the Faculty of Education at RGSC. The University in the counter affidavit has not specified the nature of work which the University would ask the petitioners to discharge at RGSC. 39. The petitioners have been appointed to impart teaching classes in the faculty of education in the stream in which they are specialized. The University in the counter affidavit has not specified the nature of work which the University would ask the petitioners to discharge at RGSC. 39. The petitioners have been appointed to impart teaching classes in the faculty of education in the stream in which they are specialized. Therefore, it would not be fair and appropriate on the part of the University to compel the petitioners to discharge any other duty or teach a subject in which they are not specialized. It would be apt to refer a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vice Chancellor L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha 1986 (3) SCC 7 which does not support the contention of the University that it has absolute discretion to take any work from the petitioners which it desires to take from them. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “8. The pre-requisite of the power of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 10(14) of the Act to transfer any teacher occupying a post in any department or college maintained by the University to any equivalent post in another department or college maintained by it is that they must, broadly, bear the same characteristics. The mere circumstance that the two posts are carried on the same scale of pay is not enough. That is because in the original text of the Amendment Act the words used in Section 10(14) as well as in the expression 'other equivalent post' as defined in Section 2 (ka, chh) are 'Samakaksh Pad'. Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore right in contending that equivalence of the pay-scale is not the only factor in judging whether the post of Principal and that of Reader are equivalent posts. We arc inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility, The term 'teacher' is defined in Section 2(ka, chh) to include Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer etc. Professors of the University like head of the department, College Professors, Readers, Lecturers belong to different grades and discharge different duties and responsibilities. The power of the Vice-Chancellor to transfer any teacher under Section 10(14) is controlled by the use of the word 'Samakaksh' and he can not transfer any teacher from one post to another in a department of the university or a college unless they belong to the same class. The power of the Vice-Chancellor to transfer any teacher under Section 10(14) is controlled by the use of the word 'Samakaksh' and he can not transfer any teacher from one post to another in a department of the university or a college unless they belong to the same class. In that view, there can be no doubt that the two posts of Principal and Reader cannot be regarded as of equal status and responsibility. The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts. Although the two posts of Principal and Reader are carried on the same scale of pay, the post of Principal undoubtedly has higher duties and responsibilities. Apart from the fact that there are certain privileges and allowances attached to it, the Principal being the head of the college has many statutory rights, such as: (i) He is the ex-officio member of the Senate, (ii) He has the right to be nominated as the member of the Syndicate, (iii) As head of the institution, he has administrative control over the College Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other teaching and non-teaching staff, (iv) The Principal of a constituent college is also the ex-officio member of the Academic Council of the University. And (v) He has the right to act as center Superintendent in the University examinations. It is thus evident that the High Court was right in holding that the post of Reader could not be regarded as an equivalent post as that of Principal in the legal sense. Maybe, when the affairs of a college maintained by the University are mismanaged, the Vice-Chancellor may, for administrative reasons, transfer a Professor or Reader of any department or college maintained by it to the post of the Principal of such college, but the converse may not be true. While the Professors and Readers by reason of their learning and erudition may enjoy much greater respect in society than the Dean or Principal of a college, it does not follow that the post of Principal must be treated as equivalent to that of a Reader for purposes of Section 10(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended.” 40. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University has also submitted that discontinuance of the B.Ed. course at RGSC is temporary. In this regard, he has placed an affidavit of Dr. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University has also submitted that discontinuance of the B.Ed. course at RGSC is temporary. In this regard, he has placed an affidavit of Dr. K.P. Upadhyay, Registrar of the University dated 06.07.2015 submitted to NCTE, which has been taken on record, to contend that University has conveyed its willingness to run three units (two units at the main campus & one unit for RGSC) of B.Ed. course. Accordingly, he submits that University is endeavoring to get one unit sanctioned for RGSC to commence B.Ed. course. 41. The said affidavit is of year 2015 and more than four years have passed and no permission to run one unit of B.Ed. course at RGSC has yet been accorded to the petitioners. Further, as per Regulation 5(4) of the Regulation, 2009, the application has to be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned during the period from 1st September till 31st October of the preceding year to the academic session for which recognition has been sought. The University has not brought on record any application submitted by it within the period prescribed in Regulation 5(4) seeking approval of the NCTE to run B.Ed. course at RGSC. 42. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the respondent-University does not seems to be correct. It is also important to consider that if petitioners were asked to sit idol or were asked to do work for which they have not been appointed, it would seriously prejudice and jeopardize their chances to claim several benefits available to them under the Career Advancement Scheme inasmuch to avail the benefit under Career Advancement Scheme, petitioners have to fulfill certain norms prescribed by the University Grants Commission which includes awards of marks in every academic session year etc. 43. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the University that the petitioners have been redeployed in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1990 is also misconceived inasmuch as the counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate as to how the Rules, 1990 is applicable on the teaching faculty of the University. 44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that action of respondents in asking the petitioners to report back at RGSC where B.Ed. courses have been stopped and there is no work for the petitioners is arbitrary and discriminatory. 44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that action of respondents in asking the petitioners to report back at RGSC where B.Ed. courses have been stopped and there is no work for the petitioners is arbitrary and discriminatory. Consequently, the decision of the Executive Council in ECR No.108 in meeting dated 07.06.2019 as circulated by Circular dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure No. 12) and communications dated 13.09.2019 and 16.09.2019 issued by Assistant Registrar (Administration) (Annexure No. 13 & 14) are quashed. The Respondents are directed not to interfere in the working of the petitioners at the main campus of the University and pay their salary and other benefits admissible to them. Further, it is open to the University to transfer and post the petitioners at RGSC, if they so desire whenever B.Ed. course after following due procedure and permission from the NCTE commences at RGSC. 45. For the reasons give above, the writ petition is allowed subject to observations above with no orders as to cost.