ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in transferring the petitioner from the 4th respondent college to the college of Veterinary Sciences, Garividi, vide memo dated 16.11.2020, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to continue the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the 4th respondent college. 2. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology of the 4th respondent institution in the year 2013. In the year 2016, he was selected for prestigious Netaji Subhash International Fellowship of Indian council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) for pursuing Ph.D. in the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Germany. After completion of the Ph.D. at Germany, he returned to India and posted in the 4th respondent college in the month of February, 2020. He was accredited by the SVVU to teach and supervise Post Graduate Veterinary students and was kept as a member of Research Advisory Committee. While so, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 transferred the petitioner to the College of Veterinary Sciences, Garividi, vide memo dated 16.11.2020 on the basis of the reference letter dated 16.10.2020 and directed the petitioner to get relieved on or before 30.11.2020 by violating the statutory rules. Questioning the same, he filed the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner submits that the College of Veterinary Sciences, Garividi, was established as a constituent college under Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University in the month of May, 2016 to impart Veterinary Education to the students as per the norms of Veterinary Council of India. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 14 dated 01.03.2019 by enhancing the teaching staff from 16 to 77 as per the norms of Veterinary Council of India to the college of Veterinary Sciences, Garividi, but the 2nd respondent did not make any efforts to comply with the said G.O, but instead, started adjusting the staff from one college to another by disturbing the academic interest of the students of already well established colleges i.e. the 4th respondent college and other colleges. The petitioner also submits that the 1st respondent enacted Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulation and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 under which regulations and guidelines were framed to all Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh to strictly maintain ‘student faculty ratio’. The petitioner contends that his transfer from the 4th respondent college to the newly established college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi where there are no students, is nothing but depriving the academic interest of the students at well established colleges. He submits that the Department of Physiology at the 4th respondent college runs with a strength of two Assistant Professors. In view of his transfer from the 4th respondent to the college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi, the student faculty ratio is violated: (i) The petitioner further submits that his transfer from the 4th respondent college to the college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi is arbitrary, high handedness and with a mala fide intention, since he questioned the higher ups regarding recruitment of 150 candidates against the norms and also found fault with the irregularities and illegalities in maintaining the seniority list as well as the promotions undertaken by the 2nd respondent university. The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 245 dated 22.12.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate and necessary action for filling up of teaching as well as non-teaching staff to the college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi. The principal of the college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi also addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting to initiate steps in compliance of G.O.Ms. No. 14 dated 01.03.2019 whereby the 1st respondent enhanced the teaching staff from 16 to 77 as per the norms of Veterinary Council of India. He submits that as per Fundamental Rule 9 (4), the transfers between inter cadre is not permitted, but transfers between intra cadre only is permitted. The petitioner further submits that he was appointed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.07.2013 after following due process pursuant to the notification dated 29.05.2012 and after selection he was appointed and posted as Assistant Professor to the 4th respondent college. As such, he is a member of the cadre strength with the 4th respondent college which is a constituent college of the 2nd respondent university. As such, he is a member of the cadre strength with the 4th respondent college which is a constituent college of the 2nd respondent university. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent issued SVVU Teachers (Manner of Appointment) Statutes, 2007 under which Statute 5 envisages that the Teaching, Research and Extension Wings of the University constitute one unit for the purpose of recruitment or promotions and the transfer of a teacher from post in one wing to an equivalent post in other wing shall not be treated as recruitment or promotion. (ii) In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) In Prasar Bharti vs. Amarjeet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3244 of 2002 dated 02.02.2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there exists a distinction between “transfer” and “deputation.” ‘Deputation’ connotes service outside the cadre or outside the parent department in which an employee is serving. ‘Transfer’ however, is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department. Whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily no employee can be transferred without his consent from one employer to another. (b) In Ajay Kumar vs. Director of Higher Education, MANU/UP/0543/1996 : (1997) 1 UPLBEC 337 the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “24. It has already been mentioned hereinbefore that after a candidate from the list is appointed in a college he becomes an employee of the college end there comes into existence relationship of Master and Servant between the candidate so appointed and the college and neither the Commission nor the Director has the power to interfere with the working of the teacher so appointed in the said college. Therefore, the candidate, who has already been appointed as a teacher in a college is no more available for being appointed/posted in another college. For the reasons given above the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 25. Our answer to the question as re-framed is as under: xxx xxx xxx 26. The U.P. Higher Education Service commission and/or the Director, Higher Education, U.P. have no jurisdiction/power to transfer a teacher from one Degree college to another.” (c) In Dr. 25. Our answer to the question as re-framed is as under: xxx xxx xxx 26. The U.P. Higher Education Service commission and/or the Director, Higher Education, U.P. have no jurisdiction/power to transfer a teacher from one Degree college to another.” (c) In Dr. R. Thimmrayappa vs. The Registrar, University of Mysore in W.P. No. 33134 of 2014 dated 16.07.2014, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka held at Para 6 of the judgment as under: “6. Heard the submissions of both the counsel. It is found that the transfer order as per Annexure A1, it refers as deputation and further it refers transfer of teachers to different constituent colleges. In the submission of the respondent, the power in respect of transfer of a person from under graduate centre to PG centre is not traceable. This transfer is to be treated as deputation since there are two different cadres, no matter, in the same University and two seniority lists will be maintained in respect of under graduate and post graduate centres. Under these circumstances, the consent should be obtained by the lending and borrowing officers. The said procedure has not been followed in the impugned order Annexure A1 and A2. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred Section 53 sub clause 10 of Karnataka State universities Act which is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that recommendation has to be made by the Vice chancellor to the Syndicate and after resolution in the syndicate, the deputation of visiting professor has to be done.” (d) In General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad vs. S. Srinivasa Rao in W.P. No. 24023 of 2010 dated 14.07.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that “the Tribunal held in the order impugned that though the petitioners mentioned that the order of transfer was on administrative grounds, but it occurred only at the request of the General Secretary, SCRMU and that the petitioners without giving any reasonable opportunity and without considering the health condition and family problems of the first respondent, straightaway passed the transfer order. However, in a catena of decisions it was held that the transfer of employee is an incidence of service and it is well settled that it should not be interfered with unless mala-fides are proved. However, in a catena of decisions it was held that the transfer of employee is an incidence of service and it is well settled that it should not be interfered with unless mala-fides are proved. Apart from that, the Apex Court in Union of India case (supra) held that if the transfer order is passed in public interest, it could not have been interfered with. Therefore, we are of the view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.” (e) In Rohit J. Gediya vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 SCC Online Guj. 37 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “27. From the above rule position also, it can be seen that the concept of transfer under the Government service would mean taking up the duties of a new post or in consequence of a change of his headquarters and that a Government employee can be transferred from one place to another, but this cannot be construed to mean that the person can be transferred outside of his cadre. 28. From the above discussion, it can be seen that by virtue of the impugned order of transfer what is sought to be done is to transfer the petitioner from the present post of Tutor in Operative Dentistry in a Government Dental College and Hospital to the post of Tutor in Dentistry in Government Medical College which is wholly impermissible and would result in to serious loss to the petitioner. Transfer of the petitioner outside his cadre would not be permissible. I, therefore, find that the respondent had no power to transfer the petitioner from the post of Tutor in Operative Dentistry in Government Dental College to the post of Tutor in Dentistry in Government Medical College. I, therefore, find that the impugned order of transfer has been passed without any authority and the same cannot be sustained. 30. In the result, as one of the rare cases, I find that the transfer order having been found wholly impermissible and illegal, this is a fit case to interfere with the same. The same is therefore quashed and set aside.” (f) In Baidyanath Thakur vs. Ranchi University, (2005) 01 JHCK 0059 the Full Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand held as under: “16. It is relevant to state that there are different types of colleges and institutions under the Universities, as defined under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The same is therefore quashed and set aside.” (f) In Baidyanath Thakur vs. Ranchi University, (2005) 01 JHCK 0059 the Full Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand held as under: “16. It is relevant to state that there are different types of colleges and institutions under the Universities, as defined under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Section 2(b) defines Autonomous Institutions, which means any institution declared as such under the Act, which includes a college also. Affiliated college has been defined u/s 2(c) of the Act, which means educational institutions having received privileges of the University. There is a separate meaning of college as defined u/s 2(f), which means an institution maintained or controlled by the University or maintained by the State Government in which instruction is given. “Constituent college” as defined u/s 2(i) means a teaching institution maintained or controlled by the University whereas Institution as defined u/s 2(k) means an Institution maintained or recognized by the University. 18. There is no separate definition of cadre laid down under the Bihar state Universities Act, 1976. The definition of “Cadre”” in general sense means, the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. “In the Service Jurisprudence, the expression “cadre” means the unit of strength of a service or a part of it as determined by the employer and it is too well settled that services rendered by an employee in one cadre cannot be taken into account for determining the seniority in another cadre unless by any rules of seniority this privilege is conferred.” 28. Thus, both the questions, as raised in the present case, are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the University. Accordingly, I hold that the non-teaching (class-III/class-IV) employees of University office, Post Graduate Department of University, Post Graduate Centres and the Units directly administered by the University, such as Computer Centres, University Library etc. Have a common Cadre, but so far affiliated colleges and constituent colleges are concerned, they have their independent separate college-wise cadre. Even there is no joint cadre of affiliated colleges nor there is any such joint cadre of constituent colleges. Have a common Cadre, but so far affiliated colleges and constituent colleges are concerned, they have their independent separate college-wise cadre. Even there is no joint cadre of affiliated colleges nor there is any such joint cadre of constituent colleges. The office order contained in Memo No. RU/Esstt/253-283, dated the 11th January, 1991 and the corrigendum, contained in Memo No. RU/Esstt/421-468, dated the 13th February, 19091 do not relate to the cadre of non-teaching (class-III/class-IV) employees of constituent colleges or the affiliated colleges. By the aforesaid order cadres of affiliated colleges and constituent colleges have not been merged with the nont-eaching cadre of the University employees. 29. In view of decision made and finding given above, I hold that the Vice-Chancellors of universities within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand have no jurisdiction to transfer a non-teaching (class-III/class-IV) employee from one constituent college to another constituent college. The respondents have no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from one constituent college to another constituent college, even though the Vice-chancellor is the Principal Executive and the appointing authority of the employees of a constituent college u/s 10 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.” (iii) The petitioner further submits that once cadre of particular institution was fixed any teaching staff from that cadre of college/institution cannot be transferred to another unit of college or institution, since it is a separate unit as defined under the University Regulations made under Section 42 (1) of the Universities Act, 2005. Clause 2(p) of the University Regulations notified on 08.07.2016 defines that “recognised veterinary college” means any veterinary college or institution either a constituent college of the University or affiliated to a University and engaged in imparting teaching of bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry degree course and recognised by the Central Government on the recommendation of Veterinary Council of India after inclusion in the First Schedule for the Act under overall administrative control of the Dean or Principal or Associate Dean. (iv) The petitioner contends that even though the 1st respondent put a ban on transfers, but contrary to it, the 2nd respondent University transferred the petitioner from the 4th respondent college to new constituent college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi. (iv) The petitioner contends that even though the 1st respondent put a ban on transfers, but contrary to it, the 2nd respondent University transferred the petitioner from the 4th respondent college to new constituent college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi. In this regard, he relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in R. Srinivasa Rao vs. Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Chittoor District in W.P. No. 20246 of 2020 dated 10.02.2021 wherein it is held as under: “16. In addition to the above illegality, it is true that there is a clear ban on transfers and in view of G.O.Ms. No. 45, Finance (HRI-PLG & Policy) Department, dated 24.06.2019, the ban was relaxed from 25.06.2019 to 05.07.2019, and in view of G.O.Ms. No. 59, finance (HR-IPLG. & Policy) Department, dated 04.07.2019, the ban was further relaxed upto 10.07.2019. The above G.Os. indicate that ban on transfers shall come into force w.e.f. 11.07.2019. Therefore, as on the date of the impugned order i.e. 29.09.2020, the ban on transfers was subsisting. It is also true that transfers are not affected in respect of almost all the Departments because of Covid-19 pandemic and the ban on transfers is not yet relaxed till today. But, the petitioner is transferred contrary to the G.Os referred to above. On this ground also, the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 is liable to be set aside. 17. Therefore, in view of G.O.Ms. Nos. 45 and 49 dated 24.06.2019 and 04.07.2019, the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 transferring the petitioner in the middle of the academic year and during subsistence of ban on transfers is the illegality committed by respondent No. 3. Therefore, I find that the present transfer is tainted with mala-fides i.e. malice in fact and contrary to Guideline No. 3(a) so also the G.Os. referred to supra and the same is hereby declared as arbitrary and illegal, consequently liable to be set aside. The point is answered accordingly.” (v) The petitioner submits that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, his transfer from the 4th respondent college to the newly constituent college of Veterinary Sciences at Garividi is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 5. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner was transferred from NTR College of Veterinary Sciences, Gannavaram to new college of Veterinary Sciences, Garividi due to exigencies on administrative grounds and as there is no other teacher available in the discipline of Veterinary Physiology at the new constituent college. He also submits that no teacher in State-wide University is recruited at entry level of Assistant Professor with reference to any particular place. They are recruited with reference to subject of specialization only. The petitioner is linking his appointment with posting of place saying that he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Veterinary Physiology, NTR college of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram. Any teacher is issued appointment orders as Assistant Professor and in later part of the orders, place of posting is indicated. The orders vide proceedings dated 26.07.2013 of University appointing the petitioner also indicated that he was appointed as Assistant Professor/equivalent cadre in SVVU in the faculty of Veterinary Science under direct recruitment in the discipline of Veterinary Physiology. The subsequent contents of the order say that on appointment to the post of Assistant Professor/Scientist Dr.Iqbal Hyder was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Veterinary Physiology at NTR college of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram in the existing vacancy. The learned standing counsel submits that subsequently, Dr. G.S.S. Chandana, Assistant Professor of Veterinary Anatomy who earlier worked at Gannavaram on return from Higher studies was posted in the Department of Veterinary anatomy at College of Veterinary Science, Garividi: (i) The learned standing counsel submits that the teaching faculty in the University is liable to be posted in equivalent posts in any place in the State level University including from one college to another. As per Section 2 of the Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University Act. 2005, the term ‘teacher’ includes a Professor, an Associate Professor, an Assistant Professor, reader, Lecturer or other person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction of conducting and guiding research or extension programs. He also submits that the appointment orders dated 26.07.2013 specifically indicated that the person so selected/appointed shall serve at least for six years in remote and difficult areas in his entire service i.e. three years each at C&B centres. He also submits that the appointment orders dated 26.07.2013 specifically indicated that the person so selected/appointed shall serve at least for six years in remote and difficult areas in his entire service i.e. three years each at C&B centres. He further submits that no teacher is recruited at entry level of the Assistant Professor with reference to any particular place of the University and transfer is an incident of service and the competent authority has the right to transfer any person at any point of time on administrative grounds, administrative exigencies or otherwise. As such, the petitioner cannot claim that he was appointed specifically for the 4th respondent college and he cannot be transferred. He submits that the appointment orders of the petitioner dated 26.07.2013 indicate that he is liable for transfer to any equivalent post to Teaching, Research and Extension of the university. Further, the 2nd respondent University is having four constituent colleges within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner from the 4th respondent college to the new constituent college at Garividi is only on the administrative grounds, as such, such transfer cannot be interfered. (ii) The learned standing counsel further submits that the petitioner was recruited pursuant to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent University on 26.05.2013. The said recruitment is meant for the vacancies arose in all the wings of the University including the 4th respondent college. The new constituent college at Garividi is also one of the four constituent colleges held by the University. As per Statute 6 of the SVVU Teachers (Manner of Appointment) Statutes, 2007, the transfers shall be as per a policy decided by the University based on the orders of the State Government issued from time to time. (iii) In support of his contentions, the learned standing counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chittoor District vs. Dr. Y. Nagamalleswari in W.A. No. 1647 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 wherein it is held as follows: “At this stage, it may be noted that Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University Teachers (Manner of Appointment) Statutes, 2007 were framed by the appellant-University under proceedings No. 286/SC/2007 dated 30.07.2007. Statute 6 in these Statutes, dealing with “Transfer Policy” weighed with the learned Judge while granting the interim order. Statute 6 in these Statutes, dealing with “Transfer Policy” weighed with the learned Judge while granting the interim order. This Statute states that transfers shall be as per the policy decided by the University based on the orders of the State Government. Be it noted that this Statute does not prescribe that every order passed by the State Government would per se be applicable to the University. However, the learned Judge brought in the State Governments policy contained in G.O.Ms. No. 54 dated 02.05.2018 on the strength of this Statute. Perusal of the said G.O. reflects that it was issued by the Government to ensure right placement of employees to secure optimum productivity and commitment to furtherance of the Government’s development objectives. Significantly, the exceptions clause in the said G.O. categorically stated that the guidelines prescribed thereunder would not apply to teaching staff of School Education, Higher (Intermediate and Collegiate) Education, Technical Education and Residential Institutions etc. It is therefore clear that this G.O. had no applicability to the appellant-University’s teaching staff as none of them would be involved in furtherance of the Government’s development objectives and that apart, teaching staff was specifically excluded under the exceptions clause. The learned Judge therefore erred in construing Statute 6 to mean that every Government order would be automatically binding on the appellant-University and in applying the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 54 dated 02.05.2018 to the case on hand on the strength thereof. Be it noted that transfer is an incidence of service (See Tushar D. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 11 SCC 678 ). It is not open to an employee to seek posting or retention at a particular place when his transfer is effected by the employer on administrative grounds or exigencies. In Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. (2003) 4 SCC 104 , the Supreme court observed that transfer orders should normally not be interferes with by the Courts. It is not open to an employee to seek posting or retention at a particular place when his transfer is effected by the employer on administrative grounds or exigencies. In Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. (2003) 4 SCC 104 , the Supreme court observed that transfer orders should normally not be interferes with by the Courts. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Snagathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey, (2004) 12 SCC 299 , the Supreme Court cautioned that unless a transfer order was found to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala-fides or was in violation of the operative guidelines, interference would not be warranted.” (iv) The learned standing counsel submits that in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the above mentioned judgment, the impugned transfer proceedings of the petitioner cannot be interfered. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was selected as Assistant Professor in regular process as per the procedure contemplated under the Regulations of the 2nd respondent University and he was appointed and posted to the 4th respondent college which is a constituent college of the 2nd respondent University, vide proceedings dated 26.07.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the notification for recruitment of the teaching staff was issued by the 2nd respondent University not only for the 4th respondent college but also for other units of the University. 7. The contention of the petitioner that he was appointed and posted to the 4th respondent college, which is a separate unit, as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology and once the cadre strength was fixed for a unit, it is a separate and independent unit, has to be considered, in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in Baidyanath Thakur case (supra) as well as the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ajay Kumar case (supra). 8. 8. The other contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is well established constituent college of the 2nd respondent University and the new college at Garividi is also another constituent college of the University, but the cadre strength of both the colleges is separate and independent and therefore, as per Fundamental Rule 9 (4), the transfers cannot be effected between inter constituent units, is valid, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ajay Kumar case (supra). 9. The contention of the petitioner that even though there is a ban on transfers in view of Covid-2019 pandemic, the 2nd respondent University with a mala-fide intention transferred the petitioner to the 4th respondent college, is also sustainable, in view of the law laid down by this Court as stated supra. The other contention of the petitioner that in view of the transfer of the petitioner from the 4th respondent college in the Department of Physiology where the petitioner and another are working, the student faculty ratio is severely affected and as the petitioner has acquired Doctorate, his services are more supportive at the 4th respondent college rather than at the new constituent college at Garividi where there are no students at all, can also be looked into. The contention that cadre strength was sanctioned to new college at Garividi, but no steps were taken in this regard, is also acceptable and to be upheld. 10. On the other hand, the contention of the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the petitioner was selected by the 2nd respondent University as a member of the teaching staff of the University but not for a particular place or for a particular unit, is valid, in view of the notification issued by the University without mentioning the place and particulars of the 4th respondent college. 2 to 4 that the petitioner was selected by the 2nd respondent University as a member of the teaching staff of the University but not for a particular place or for a particular unit, is valid, in view of the notification issued by the University without mentioning the place and particulars of the 4th respondent college. The other contention of the learned standing counsel that the petitioner is only posted as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physiology at the 4th respondent college which is one of the constituent colleges of the University, as such, the University authorities are empowered to transfer the petitioner from one constituent college to another constituent college, is not acceptable, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court of Allahabad, the High Court of Jharkhand as well as this Court as stated supra. The contention of the learned standing counsel that the ban on transfers imposed by the 1st respondent is not at all applicable to the 2nd respondent University is untenable, in view of the Statute 6 of the SVVU Teachers (Manner of Appointment) Statutes, 2007 as stated supra. 11. From the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary impermissible and with malice intention and therefore, this is a fit case to interfere with the same and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 16.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent University are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to take steps to repatriate the petitioner as Assistant Professor or equivalent post at the 4th respondent institution, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.