Dismissed

Dr Jagannath Olekar v. University of Agricultural Sciences

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024WP/18766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Assistant Professor directly recruited and posted as field officer under the Government of India-funded Cost of Cultivation Scheme remained subject to the University's service rules permitting transfer. No statutory or executive bar against transferring scheme staff was shown; advisories and an MoU did not prohibit transfer. The court held the petitioner was 'a teacher first and a field officer next', found he had ample teaching/research credentials, upheld his posting as Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya on own pay scale (designation for salary only), and dismissed the writ petition directing him to report forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to report at V.C. Farm, Mandya forthwith, failing which treated as abstaining from duty without salary unless granted leave.

Dr Jagannath Olekar Vs University of Agricultural… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18766 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. JAGANNATH OLEKAR S/O LATE NINGONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (FIELD OFFICER) COST OF CULTVATION SCHEME, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTATOR, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560065.

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.07.2024 (ANNEXURE-P) AND MODIFIED ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 (ANNEXURE-Q) AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.07.2024 BEARING NO. AAA.KA./C-SAM./SAHA PRAA-JA.O/VARGAVANE/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-P) AND MODIFIED ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 BEARING

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶13

NO. AAA.KA./C-SAM./SAHA PRAA-JA.O./TIDDUPADI/ 2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-Q).

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.D.PÀ/¹-

¶18

¸ÀA./¸ÀºÀ ¥Áæ.-d.N./ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ/2024-25 dated 08.07.2024 and the subsequent modified order bearing No.D.PÀ./¹.-¸ÀA./¸ÀºÀ.¥Áæd.N./wzÀÄÝ¥Àr/2024-25 dated 09.07.2024 passed by the

¶19

respondent by which, he was transferred and directed to report at V.C. Farm, Mandya as a Professor on his own pay scale.

¶20

(i) The petitioner contends that he was initially

¶21

appointed as a field officer under the "Comprehensive Scheme for Studying the Cost of Cultivation for Principal Crops in India" (henceforth referred to as "scheme") in the cadre of Assistant Professor through direct recruitment on 18.01.2006. He contends that he was specifically appointed to the post of field officer under the scheme, which was fully funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶23

India. He was thereafter, promoted to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme vide order dated 01.02.2022. He took charge of the post of Associate Professor on 02.02.2022. However, he continued to be a field officer under the aforesaid scheme.

¶24

(ii) When things stood thus, the petitioner was transferred and posted as an Assistant Professor, Agricultural Economic at V.C. Farm, Agricultural University at Mandya on his own pay scale and Dr. Maheen Sharief was placed in-charge of the post held by him vide order dated 31.05.2023.

¶25

(iii) The petitioner questioned the said order before this Court in W.P.No.11626/2023. He contends that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Additional Economic Adviser (CS), Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Economics and Statistics Division, New Delhi, emailed to the respondent - University regarding transfer of the petitioner from the Cost of Cultivation Scheme, Karnataka and stated that the post of field officer cannot remain vacant and the petitioner, who is already working under the scheme may be retained and allowed to continue to work as a field officer. The

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶28

petitioner contends that this Court after noticing the aforesaid and also the fact that the petitioner, who was Associate Professor could not have been posted as an Assistant Professor at Mandya, allowed the petition in terms of the order dated 06.07.2023 and held that since there was no sanctioned post of Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at College of Agriculture, V.C. Farm, Mandya, the petitioner could not be transferred to an unsanctioned post that too, to a lower grade.

¶29

(iv) The petitioner contends that the Economic and Statistical Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation, Directorate of Economics and Statistics had written a letter to the then Vice Chancellor of the respondent - University addressing his concern with regard to the posting out the staff of the scheme without any intimation to the Directorate. He further stated that if the personnel engaged in the scheme is posted out of the scheme, entire training would go waste and interest of the scheme would be effected and therefore, requested to ensure that the concerned staff in the scheme are not posted outside the scheme without consulting the Directorate. He further contends that the scheme is a continuous scheme run by the Government of India

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶31

in order to ensure that field data is collected and compiled annually on cost of cultivation and cost of production in respect of various agricultural crops and to generate crop-wise and state-wise estimate of cost of cultivation and cost of production of selected agricultural crops. He claimed that the Ministry on 20.03.2002 addressed a letter to all the implementing agencies of the scheme for strict compliance with the directions issued concerning filling up of sanctioned posts along with the details of the implementing agency-wise list of staff strength for the main component under the Comprehensive Scheme for estimating the cost of cultivation of principal crops in India.

¶32

(v) The petitioner contends that time and again, the Ministry through the Directorate had addressed letters expressing difficulties faced by the Directorate due to the shortage of regular staff and engagement of staff on contract basis. He contends that he is regular employee specifically appointed under the scheme through direct recruitment in the year 2006 and he has been trained to work as a field officer under the scheme. He further contends that the Directorate and the respondent have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for implementation of the scheme. The

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶35

Memorandum of Understanding clearly sets out that the employees under the scheme may avail promotion/higher scale as per the rules and regulations of the University. However, the post shall revert back as and when the person retires. He therefore, contends that soon after the petitioner retired from service, the post to which, he was appointed would stand reverted. He further contends that the respondent - University issued Abstracts of Staff Position at the College of Agriculture, Mandya in the cadre of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. The abstract clearly indicated that there was no sanctioned post of Associate Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya.

¶36

(vi) Nonetheless, the respondent - University passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2024, whereby the petitioner, who was working as a field officer and the Head of the Scheme of Cost of Cultivation, was transferred and posted to the vacant post of Professor, Agricultural Economics, V.C. Farm, Agricultural University, Mandya on own pay scale and directed to handover full charge of the previous post to one Dr. Maheen Sharief. Later on 09.07.2024, the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 was modified whereby words "Scheme Head" were removed and the same were ordered to be read as "Dr.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶39

Jagannath Olekar, Associate Professor and Field Officer (Assistant Professor Grade)".

¶40

(vii) The petitioner contends that this order transferring him is one without authority of law as he was specifically appointed to the post of a field officer under the Comprehensive Scheme, referred above. He also contended that the impugned order is passed without consulting the Ministry of Agriculture as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the respondent and the Directorate, referred supra. He contends that as per the letter dated 06.06.1996 addressed by the Ministry, persons who were working under the scheme cannot be transferred out as that would adversely affect the interest of the scheme, which is implemented all over the country. The petitioner therefore, contends that the impugned order transferring and posting him as the Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya is not only illegal but also in violation of various directions issued by the Government of India as well as the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the respondent as well as the Directorate.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶43

The learned Senior counsel representing the

¶44

petitioner urged the following contentions in support of the writ

¶45

petition:-

¶46

(i) that the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 is one without authority of law and the same is in violation of scheme under which, the petitioner was recruited. He invited the attention of the Court to the order of appointment of the petitioner and contended that he was appointed to the scheme and therefore, for all practical purposes, he continued in the scheme. He contended that once he was recruited directly to the post of field officer under the scheme, the respondent was bound to fall in line with the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. He submitted that when the issue regarding the transfer of the petitioner from the scheme came to the knowledge of the Ministry, a communication was addressed to the respondent directing it not to transfer the petitioner out of the scheme. He contends that when the intention of the respondent was to recruit the petitioner to the post

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶49

of field officer under a scheme, it cannot now turn around and claim that his appointment was to the post of Assistant Professor and not to the post of field officer.

¶50

(ii) that the petitioner, who holds the post of an Associate Professor, cannot be transferred to the post of Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya that too, on his own pay scale.

¶51

(iii) that the transfer of the petitioner from the scheme resulted in a vacancy in the scheme which is censured by the Government of India from time to time by issuing various circulars and directives. He contends that the Government of India had specifically directed the respondent not to transfer out any personnel appointed under the scheme without its permission. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is improper and is designed to harass him. Besides this, he contended that when there is no sanctioned post of Associate Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya, he could not be transferred to a non-

¶52

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶53

sanctioned post or non-existing post by transferring him to the post of Professor on his own scale.

¶54

(iv) He also contends that there is no serious public interest involved in transferring the petitioner to V.C. Farm, Mandya.

¶55

(v) In addition, he contends that the petitioner is transferred to V.C. Farm, Mandya, as a Professor to teach Agricultural Economics for Undergraduates. He contends that since the year 2006, he has been a field officer under the scheme and has barely taught students. He therefore, contends that transferring the petitioner to V.C. Farm, Mandya did not serve any purpose.

¶56

(vi) He also contended that the post of Professor at V.C.

¶57

Farm, Mandya was vacant since from 2009 and onwards and the respondent has managed the teaching activities at V.C. Farm, Mandya, from then onwards. Therefore, he contends that there is no unearthly need to post the petitioner as a Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya. He also contends that this

¶58

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶59

Court had in W.P.No.11626/2023 held that the petitioner could not be transferred to a nonsanctioned post and since there was no post of Associate Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya, the petitioner could not be transferred against a nonsanctioned post.

¶60

(vii) He contends that under the transfer guidelines framed by the respondent, the employees who were working in specialized post which was unique to Bengaluru, are exempt from the applicability of the transfer guidelines. He contends that the petitioner being a field officer was holding a specialized post and, he was exempt from being transferred.

¶61

(i) Per contra, the respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections inter-alia contending that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 18.01.2006 and posted as a field officer under the Cost of Cultivation Scheme. It is contended that in the said appointment order, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner is liable to be transferred within the jurisdiction of the University in the interest of the

¶62

12 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶64

University work and his condition of service shall be governed as per the Rules/Regulations of the University as amended from time to time.

¶65

(ii) It contended that the University has several teaching campuses, various research stations at Bengaluru, Chintamani, Hassan, Mandya and Chamarajanagar, where activities of teaching, research and extension are required to be carried on by the teaching staff only. Therefore, it was expected of the petitioner to teach, involve in research and extension in the establishment of the University as per Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Agricultural Universities Act, 1969.

¶66

(iii) The respondent further contend that the petitioner was transferred and posted as the Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya against the post of a Professor on his own pay scale only for the purpose of drawing salary. However, for all practical purposes, he would be treated as an Associate Professor. It is contended that there is no bar in law to transfer and post the petitioner to a higher cadre. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2006 as an Associate Professor as per the order dated

¶67

13 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶69

01.02.2022 and eversince then, he has been working as an Associate Professor. It is also contended that between January, 2019 till November, 2019 and January, 2020 till 31.12.2023, several Assistant Professors and Professors have retired from service and that V.C. Farm, Mandya is functioning with skeletal teaching staff, which has resulted in overburdening the existing staff.

¶70

(iv) It is therefore, contended that the respondent felt the need of services of the petitioner as a Teacher of Agricultural Economic at V.C. Farm, Mandya. It also contended that the petitioner has rich teaching experience in as much as

¶71

the petitioner has guided many Postgraduate Students, Ph.D. students and has also taught Undergraduates and therefore, has all the potential to continue as a Teacher at V.C. Farm, Mandya. The respondent therefore, contended that the impugned order of transfer does not fall foul of any provisions of law.

¶72

(v) In so far as the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed under the scheme and that there are several directives issued by the Ministry as well as Directorate, the

¶73

14 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶75

respondent contend that another Assistant Professor Dr. Maheen Sharief is handed over the additional charge of the post of field officer under the scheme. It is further contended that letters, which are relied upon by the petitioner, were all long prior to the petitioner being transferred to V.C. Farm, Mandya. It is also contended that the appointment of the petitioner is by the respondent and therefore, the respondent is entitled to deploy the services of the petitioner depending upon the need at its various campuses.

¶76

The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent reiterated the above contentions.

¶77

A rejoinder is filed to the statement of objections, wherein, it is contended that the post of a field officer under the scheme is a single and specialized post which requires continuous training and expertise in the field. The post of field officer is a sanctioned post by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Government of India. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner reported to duty as a field officer on 25.01.2006. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent cannot harp continuously and claim that the

¶78

15 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶80

petitioner was appointed to a teaching post and hence, he could be transferred. He contends that Field Officer and Assistant Professors are equivalent cadres, they are classified differently for administrative convenience. This, the petitioner contends is stated in detail in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Directorate and the respondent. He contends that the Memorandum of Understanding provides that the employees under the scheme may avail promotions to higher scale as per Rules and Regulations of the respondent. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled for financial and promotional benefits as a regular teacher of the respondent, though the work, duties and responsibilities of a field officer are largely different from that of a teacher. He thus contends that the post of a field officer cannot be equated to a teacher. He has extrapolated the above contention by referring to the role and responsibilities of a field officer, which provided that amongst other things, the incumbent shall take classes, guide students, attend seminars, involve in department meetings and training programmes. He claims that contrarily a teacher is bound to devote 70% of his/her time for teaching at 3 courses in UG/PG, 25% time for research and extension activities and

¶81

16 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶83

remaining 5% for non-curricular work. Therefore, he contends that the two jobs are worlds apart and not comparable.

¶84

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶85

learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.

¶86

The Order dated 18.01.2006 appointing the petitioner shows that he was directly recruited to the post of Assistant Professor and his appointment was subject to he obtaining a pass certificate in “NET”. He was temporarily appointed to the post of field officer, Cost Cultivation Scheme, until further orders by the respondent. It further provided that the petitioner shall provide an undertaking, that he would serve in the scheme for a minimum period of three years, to ensure uninterrupted fulfilment of scheme mandates. It also provided that he could be transferred to a similar post in the respondent - University in the interest of work of the University. His service conditions was to be governed as per the Act/Statutes/Regulations of the University as amended from time to time.

¶87

17 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶89

Statute 30 of the University Statutes provide that a Vice-Chancellor shall with the approval of the Board, appoint (a) Professor (b) Associate Professor (c) Assistant Professor (d) Instructor. The duties and responsibilities of teachers (including research and extension workers) shall be to,

¶90

(a) conduct teaching or/ and research or/ and extension work of the highest possible order in his field of specialisation.

¶91

(b) serve the University in any capacity for which he is found suitable in his particular grade and according to assignments made by the Vice-Chancellor to effect a close co-ordination and integration of teaching, research and extension.

¶92

The petitioner was therefore, undoubtedly

¶93

appointed as an Assistant Professor based on the qualification as prescribed by the UGC/ICAR. Thus, the first and primary contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed under the scheme and not as an Assistant Professor, is liable to be rejected. The ancillary contention that the post of field officer was sanctioned by the Government of India and hence for all practical purposes, the

¶94

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶95

petitioner is appointed under the scheme, is therefore inconsequential.

¶96

The contention of the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner had barely any teaching experience, is belied by the score card of the petitioner that was marked for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2006. The petitioner was promoted as an Associate Professor - Agricultural Economics on 01.02.2022 and continued as a field officer under the scheme. The score card bears testimony to the exceptional record of the petitioner in teaching/research/extension work as he was awarded the maximum marks in this category. A peek into his specific achievements in teaching/research and extension work showed that he had taken a good number of classes for undergraduates between 2014 and 2020 relating to Principles of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Farm Management and Production Economics, Agricultural Finance and Co-operation. He had also taken classes for Diploma students between 201516 to 2016-17. When he was Advisory committee member, he had guided 4 postgraduate students between 2013-14 to 201920. Later, when he was Chairman of Advisory committee, he

¶97

19 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶99

guided 7 postgraduate students between 2016-17 to 2019-20. He had also developed teaching aids such as Principles of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Farm Management and Production Economics, Agricultural Finance and Co-operation. He also served as an external examiner for UG/PG/Diploma examinations between 2014-15 to 2016-17. He was also one of the faculty members who set the question bank for PG-CET admission during 2020-21. As far as research is concerned, his entire work under the scheme is treated by the petitioner as part of his research, which includes institutional research conducted by him and sponsored by the Government of India as well the State Government, Tobacco Board and the respondent - University. The petitioner had conducted vast extension programmes between 2015 and 2020. He had organised several training programmes between 2016 and 2020. He had participated as a Resource person in bi-monthly meetings and Technical workshop/campaign between 2014 to 2020. The petitioner had large number of publications to his credit and had published a book on agricultural economics and attended quite a number of symposiums and participated in special training/orientation programmes / Symposiums /

¶100

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶101

Seminars / Workshops etc. In short, the petitioner is a repository of knowledge in the field of teaching/ research and extension and endowed with all the acumen that a teacher should possess but unfortunately, has claimed that he does not have the teaching ability/experience to teach under graduates at V.C. Farm, Mandya. The statement of objections filed by the respondent shows that the petitioner is expected to teach (i) Fundamentals of Agricultural Economics (ii) Farm Management, Production and Resource Economics (iii) Agricultural Marketing, Trade and Prices (iv) Agricultural Finance and Co-operation (v) Social and Allied Science Interventions (vi) Agro-Industrial attachment. This is not contested by the petitioner in his rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the respondent. As a matter of fact, the respondent has filed a memo dated 21.09.2024 and has enclosed with it an extract of the classes taken by the petitioner between 2020-21 and 202324. The subjects taught by him are (i) Agricultural Finance and Co-operation (ii) Fundamentals of Agricultural Economics (iii) Farm Management Production and Resource Economics (iv) Agricultural Research, Research Ethics and Rural Development Programmes (iv) Agricultural marketing, Trade and Prices (v)

¶102

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶103

Intellectual property and its management in agriculture. Therefore, the petitioner who is more a teacher than a field officer cannot complain that he has no teaching experience just to avoid being transferred. The acumen amassed by the petitioner in his field and the fact that he possesses a Doctorate in Agricultural economics in the year 2019 should make teaching the undergraduates at V.C. Farm, Mandya, a child’s play. Yet the petitioner has wantonly and without any sense of shame claimed that he does not have the teaching experience, just to avoid going to Mandya, which does not have the charm and shine of Bengaluru. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no teaching experience to teach students at V.C. Farm, Mandya and therefore, his transfer to V.C. Farm, Mandya would not help the students in any way, is liable to be rejected.

¶104

In so far as the contention that the Government of India had time to time issued advisories not to transfer the staff under the scheme is concerned, it is relevant to note that the scheme was implemented by the Government of India in the year 1970-71 in collaboration with the State Government and Agricultural Universities in the country. The scheme is a

¶105

22 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶107

continuous and an ongoing process. The petitioner has placed on record a communication dated 06.06.1996 addressed to the Vice Chancellor to ensure that the staff appointed under the scheme are not transferred without consulting the Department. Nothing is placed on record to show the circumstances under which this letter was issued. Another correspondence by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India is addressed to all the Vice-Chancellors of agricultural Universities in the country directing filling up of vacant posts under the scheme at pay scales approved by it. Another correspondence dated 04.08.2017 addressed by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Government of India to the Vice-Chancellors whereby, the latter was requested to fill up the vacant posts under the scheme for smooth functioning of the scheme. In the same vein are the letters dated 20.03.2018 and 16.07.2018. An undated Memorandum of Understanding is placed on record, which shows that it was entered into between the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and the respondent, which inter-alia provided that,

¶108

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶109

(i) The regular staff posted under the scheme would be considered on par with the regular employees of the University for all the privileges enjoyed by the regular staff of the University.

¶110

(ii) Appointment / recruitment of staff under the scheme shall be made as per norms indicated in Annexure-I following rules and regulations of the University. However, if the pay scale of corresponding work/post in the University is different, initial scale existing in the university for similar work/post may be granted.

¶111

(iii) The employees may avail promotions/higher scale as per rules and regulations of the University. However, the posts will be reverted back to the original approved scale as and when the person retires.

¶112

(iv) The Memorandum of Understanding shall be reviewed and modified, if required at the

¶113

24 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶114

beginning of each block period which is of 3 years at present.

¶115

Except this, the petitioner has not produced any document to establish that the transfer of staff under the scheme was prohibited under any law/ executive orders etc.

¶116

Be that as it may, when the petitioner was earlier transferred as Assistant Professor to V.C. Farm, Mandya in terms of the order dated 31.05.2023, the Department of Agriculture, Government of India was informed about his transfer. In reply, the Additional Economic Advisor, Department of Agriculture, Government of India, informed the respondent on 13.06.2023 to retain the services of the petitioner in the scheme. The circumstances under which the communication dated 13.06.2023 was addressed are far to seek. The petitioner has not produced any document to show how his transfer from the post of field officer would affect the scheme. He has also not produced any document from the Directorate as to how his transfer would affect the scheme. Besides this, the petitioner has not explained how Dr.Maheen Sharief is not competent to perform the duties of a field officer under the scheme. The

¶117

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶118

petitioner has himself admitted in his rejoinder that a FARMAP2.0 software is created and every person associated with the scheme is trained in the software to collate information and to pass it on to the Directorate from time to time. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner from the scheme is proscribed by the Government of India does not appeal to the mind of this Court and is therefore, liable to be rejected.

¶119

As far as the contention that the petitioner is transferred and posted as a Professor at V.C. Farm, Mandya, though he is not qualified to hold the post, the respondent has clarified that the petitioner is transferred on his own scale and the designation is shown as Professor only for the purpose of drawing salary and for all practical purposes, the petitioner continued to be an Associate Professor. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected.

¶120

The further contention that there is no public interest involved in transferring the petitioner, it is relevant to note that the post of Professor of agricultural economics is vacant since 2009. This itself presents a stark picture about the

¶121

26 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶122

quality of studies that the students are undergoing at V.C. Farm, Mandya. The respondent has claimed that several teachers at Mandya have retired and the respondent is compelled to take Assistant Professor/Associate Professor on contract basis. This statement is not refuted by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Therefore, it can be assumed that the students at Mandya are taught Agricultural economics and Farm management by someone who has no proficiency in the subject, thereby affecting the quality of studies. The petitioner who has vast experience as a teacher, equipped with formidable research, training expertise apart from field experience as a field officer under the scheme, would be a treasure house of knowledge from whom the students at V.C. Farm, Mandya could truly benefit. Therefore, the contention that no public interest is involved in transferring the petitioner to V.C. Farm, Mandya is liable to be rejected.

¶123

As far as the last contention that the transfer guidelines prescribed by the respondent does not allow employees who are working in specialised post unique to Bengaluru, this also fails as the petitioner is a teacher first and a field officer next. Therefore, once the petitioner had accepted

¶124

27 - NC: 2024:KHC:40569 WP No. 18766 of 2024

¶125

his order of appointment which provided that his appointment is transferable and that he would work at the place designated by the University, he cannot now turn around and claim that he holds a specialised post.

¶126

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed . The petitioner is directed to report at V.C. Farm, Mandya, forthwith, failing which, he shall be treated as abstaining from work and shall not be entitled to salary, unless he is granted leave by the competent authority.

¶127

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending

¶128

I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Dr Jagannath Olekar v. University of Agricultural Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Jagannath Olekar v. University of Agricultural Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative

Sri. Sridhar Vedula Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. P Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumari Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

M N Kavitha Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Lokesh K Vs State of Karnataka