Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Nair Service Society (NSS) challenging the judgments of the learned Single Judge that had quashed transfer orders of Assistant Professors moved between colleges under different Universities.
The Court held that an Educational Agency cannot transfer teachers from one college affiliated to a University to another college affiliated to a different University without the written request of the concerned teacher, as mandated by Section 68A of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, and Section 64A of the Kerala University Act, 1974.
Reiterating a fundamental administrative law principle, the Bench observed:
“When a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.”
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, and the impugned transfer orders were held to be in violation of statutory provisions.
Facts
The core dispute revolved around whether managements of aided colleges having institutions under multiple universities could effect inter-University transfers without the teacher’s consent, purportedly to adjust workload.
In the first matter, the Travancore Devaswom Board, managing colleges under both Mahatma Gandhi (MG) University and Kerala University, had transferred an Assistant Professor in Botany from Devaswom Board Pamba College, Parumala (MG University) to Kumbalathu Sankupillai Memorial DB College, Sasthamkotta (Kerala University). The transfer, effected to accommodate another appointee, was challenged as being illegal and contrary to the MG University Act. The learned Single Judge had quashed the transfer, holding that Section 68A prohibited inter-University transfers without a written request.
In the second and third connected appeals, the Nair Service Society (NSS) had transferred Assistant Professors in Economics from NSS Hindu College, Changanassery (MG University) to NSS College, Cherthala (Kerala University) on grounds of workload redistribution. The Government and Universities had objected, citing violation of statutory provisions, leading the learned Single Judge to quash the orders. These orders were challenged before the Division Bench.
Issues
- Whether an Educational Agency managing colleges under different Universities can transfer teachers between such colleges without the written consent of the teacher.
- Whether “redeployment” for workload adjustment amounts to an inter-University transfer governed by Sections 64A/68A of the respective Acts.
- Whether the managerial right of transfer can override express statutory restrictions under University laws.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The managements (Travancore Devaswom Board and NSS) contended that the transfers were made to balance academic workload and did not amount to statutory violations. They argued that since all the colleges were under one management, the transfers were purely administrative and incidental to service conditions.
It was further contended that the term “redeployment” could not be equated with an inter-University transfer, as it merely adjusted teaching hours within the corporate management’s overall structure. The managements relied upon the Kerala High Court decision in Johnson George v. State of Kerala [2003 (2) KLT 676], asserting that unless a specific prohibition existed, managerial discretion could not be curtailed.
The counsel argued that the absence of an express clause barring transfers across Universities implied that such transfers could be made, provided they served administrative exigencies and did not cause prejudice to any teacher.
Respondents’ Arguments
On behalf of the aggrieved teachers and Universities, it was contended that both the Kerala University Act, 1974 and Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 specifically mandated written consent of the teacher for any inter-University transfer. Without such consent, the transfer would be void.
It was argued that redeployment was a managerial device to disguise inter-University transfers, which could not be permitted since no statutory provision authorizes such redeployment across University boundaries. The Government and University counsels emphasized that the word “redeployment” is not recognized under the University Acts or Statutes, and therefore could not override the statutory safeguards conferred on teachers.
They further relied on Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111], to submit that statutory authorities are creatures of law and cannot act beyond their defined powers. The teacher’s seniority, rights, and service conditions would be gravely prejudiced by unilateral transfers, as such movements across Universities reset seniority rankings.
Analysis of the Law
The Division Bench analyzed the relevant provisions in both University Acts:
- Section 68A, Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985
Provides that inter-University transfer can only occur on the written request of the teacher who has completed three years of service.
It further stipulates that such transfer can be made only once during service, and the teacher transferred becomes junior-most in the new University’s cadre. - Section 64A, Kerala University Act, 1974
Contains identical provisions, mandating written request, seniority-based allotment, and transfer only upon the teacher’s consent.
The Bench also examined Statutes 35(2) and 37 of Chapter 45 of the MG University Statutes, 1997, and Statute 34 of Chapter 2 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1979, which collectively affirm that transfers affecting teachers’ postings must adhere strictly to statutory guidelines.
Justice Muralee Krishna emphasized that statutory compliance is not optional and that management cannot invoke “administrative exigency” to override express legal provisions. The Court clarified that “redeployment,” as argued by managements, is neither defined nor recognized in any University law.
Precedent Analysis
- Johnson George v. State of Kerala [2003 (2) KLT 676] – The Court clarified that while managerial transfers are permissible, they must not contravene statutory provisions. This decision did not endorse inter-University transfers without consent.
- Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] – The Supreme Court held that when a statute prescribes a manner of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The Bench applied this principle, noting that the manager’s powers are “creatures of statute.”
- O.P. No. 22784 of 1997 (Kerala HC, 2007) – Held that without amending the parent University Act, no inter-University transfer could be effected. This led to the insertion of Sections 64A and 68A through legislative amendment, reinforcing the consent requirement.
The Bench concluded that none of the cited precedents supported the managements’ interpretation of “redeployment” or administrative flexibility beyond statutory limits.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that no written request or consent had been obtained from any of the transferred teachers. On the contrary, the teachers had objected to such transfers, citing prejudice to seniority and service rights.
Justice Muralee Krishna noted that the managements’ attempt to justify the transfers as “redeployment” was merely a “cunning attempt to circumvent the statutory mandate.” The Court explained that the dictionary meanings of “transfer” and “redeployment” both involved movement from one place or position to another, and hence the management’s distinction was illusory.
The Court emphasized that inter-University transfers are permissible only as per Sections 64A/68A, which explicitly require the teacher’s written consent. The absence of such consent rendered the orders invalid ab initio.
The Bench held that seniority protection applies only to intra-University transfers and not to inter-University movements, where the transferred teacher automatically becomes junior-most in the new University.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the learned Single Judge’s decisions. The Court conclusively ruled that an Educational Agency cannot transfer teachers across Universities without their written consent, and that “redeployment” has no statutory basis in the University Acts.
Justice Muralee Krishna summed up:
“A manager is a creature of statute and cannot act beyond the four corners of the law. Any deviation from the procedure prescribed under Sections 64A and 68A would render the transfer order void.”
All transfer orders in question were declared invalid, and the teachers were directed to be reinstated to their original posts with all consequential benefits.
Implications
This judgment carries major implications for private and aided college managements in Kerala. It establishes that:
- The consent of the teacher is mandatory for inter-University transfers.
- “Redeployment” cannot be used as a substitute term to evade statutory procedures.
- Statutory compliance prevails over administrative convenience, reaffirming the supremacy of the University Acts.
- Teachers’ seniority and service security cannot be compromised under managerial discretion.
The ruling ensures uniformity and fairness in inter-University appointments and prevents arbitrary managerial transfers.
FAQs
1. Can a college management transfer a teacher to another University without consent?
No. Under Sections 64A and 68A of the Kerala and MG University Acts, a teacher can only be transferred across Universities upon a written request.
2. What is the legal difference between “redeployment” and “transfer”?
The Court clarified that redeployment and transfer both involve movement between posts. Since “redeployment” lacks statutory recognition, it cannot justify inter-University transfers.
3. How does such a transfer affect a teacher’s seniority?
A teacher transferred across Universities becomes junior-most in the new institution, irrespective of prior service, as per statutory provisions.