Transfer to Higher Post Within Same University Jurisdiction Cannot Be Resisted on Grounds of Non-Equivalence: Karnataka HC

“Transfer to Higher Grade Post Is Not a Civil Consequence; Teacher Cannot Claim to Remain Stationed at One Campus Indefinitely,” Karnataka High Court, in the case of Dr. Jagannath Olekar v. University of Agricultural Sciences, dismissed a writ appeal challenging a transfer order that posted an Associate Professor to a Professor-grade post at a different campus of the same university. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the transfer order as it neither demoted the appellant nor violated his service conditions under the Universities of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009.

The Court rejected the appellant's core contention that the transfer to V.C. Farm, Mandya amounted to posting on a non-equivalent post and reiterated that a transfer to a higher post cannot be termed disadvantageous or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

“Transfer to a Post of Higher Grade Does Not Result in Any Disadvantage” – Equivalence Argument Rejected

The appellant, Dr. Jagannath Olekar, was serving as an Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Pursuant to administrative reassignments, he was transferred to a Professor-grade post at V.C. Farm, Mandya, under the same university.

Challenging the transfer, the appellant argued that:

• The post was not equivalent to his current position;

• The post did not exist at the time of transfer;

• The transfer was made without consultation with the Central Government, violating a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU);

• He was not a "Teacher", and therefore could not be subjected to faculty transfer rules under the UAS Act.

The High Court rejected these contentions, observing:

“The appellant has not been posted to a post or a rank which is lower than his current rank. On the contrary, he has been posted to a post carrying a higher grade... Clearly, the appellant cannot claim that he suffers any disadvantage on account of being transferred to such a post.” [Para 18]

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Tejshree Ghag v. Prakash Parashuram Patil, where transfers to posts with lower pay and promotional prospects were struck down. The Court emphasized that no such prejudice occurred in the present case:

“Transfers must be made to an equivalent post... but if the post is of a higher grade with no loss of pay or seniority, there is no violation of service rights.” [Para 19]

“Once Appointed as Teacher, Cannot Deny Teaching Role for Avoiding Transfer” – Attempt to Escape UAS Act Rebuffed

One of the appellant’s more audacious arguments was that he was not a “Teacher” under Section 2(25) of the UAS Act, 2009, since he was appointed under the Cost of Cultivation Scheme, funded by the Government of India. He contended this made him immune to teaching faculty transfer rules.

The Court flatly rejected this claim, noting that the appellant was originally appointed as an Assistant Professor, was promoted under the teaching cadre’s Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), and had claimed teaching credits in his promotion application:

“Considering the contents of the appellant’s application for claiming promotion on the basis of the teaching work, the appellant’s contention that he cannot be considered as a Teacher, is not bona fide.” [Para 28]

The Court relied on Section 2(25) of the UAS Act, which defines a teacher as one appointed for imparting instruction or guiding research, and Section 30(1) which governs teaching appointments:

“He had claimed credits for teaching work, guidance of PG students, and role as examiner. His promotion was evaluated on that basis. Therefore, he cannot now disown the teaching role to avoid transfer.” [Paras 27–28]

“No Prior Government Consultation Required – MoU Only Ensures Financial Support, Not Administrative Oversight”

Rejecting the argument that prior consultation with the Central Government was necessary before effecting the transfer, the Court held:

“There is no pre-condition requiring consultation with the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India, before transferring the appellant.” [Para 29]

Referring to the MoU between the University and Government of India, the Court observed:

“The MoU only contemplates the Union Government’s role as a provider of grants and technical guidance. It does not require consultation for administrative postings.” [Para 30]

Further, the appellant’s appointment order dated 18.01.2006 expressly stipulated that “his service conditions shall be governed as per the Act / Statutes / Regulations of the University”, which included the right of the university to effect transfers.

“Administrative Discretion in Transfer Must Be Respected If No Malice or Violation of Law is Proven”

The Court reaffirmed settled service jurisprudence that transfer is an incident of service, especially when permissible under appointment terms and university rules:

“The appellant’s appointment letter expressly provides that he is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the University jurisdiction, in the interest of university work.” [Para 20]

The university’s Transfer Guidelines of 2005 also mandated minimum five-year service outside Bangalore, a policy aimed at equitable staff distribution. The Court upheld this administrative prerogative and found no mala fide or illegality in its exercise.

“Structural Change of VC Farm to Separate University Irrelevant to Validity of Original Transfer”

The appellant had argued that since V.C. Farm, Mandya was now part of a new Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences University, he could not be transferred to another university.

The Court dismissed this ground as irrelevant:

“Admittedly, V.C. Farm, Mandya, was part of the respondent University at the time when the impugned transfer orders were issued.” [Para 33]

The Court clarified that any future question of repatriation or absorption into the newly formed university was beyond the scope of the current appeal.

No Right to Stationary Posting – Transfer to Professor Grade Upheld

Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court found no merit in any of the appellant's claims, emphasizing that:

• He was appointed and promoted in a teaching cadre;

• The transfer was to a higher-grade post;

• No civil consequences or reduction in rank, pay, or promotional avenues were involved;

• University rules explicitly permitted such transfer;

• The MoU with the Centre did not restrain the University’s administrative authority.

The Court therefore dismissed the appeal, vacated interim relief, and clarified that the appellant would be treated on par with other faculty at V.C. Farm, Mandya.

“The appellant would be entitled to be treated in the same manner as other teachers who were posted at VC Farm... The present appeal is accordingly, dismissed.” [Paras 34–35]

Date of Decision: 10 October 2025