Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the transfer of an Associate Professor from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru to Vishweswaraya Canal Farm, Mandya (VC Farm). A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi held that the transfer of Jagannath Olekar was valid since VC Farm, Mandya, was part of the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) at the time the transfer orders were issued.
Jagannath Olekar was serving as Associate Professor and Field Officer for the Cost of Cultivation Scheme in the Department of Agriculture Economics at UAS. He was transferred to VC Farm, Mandya on July 8, 2024. His petition challenging this order was dismissed by a single bench and he preferred an appeal.
In the appeal, it was argued on behalf of Olekar that the position offered at VC Farm was not equivalent to his role at UAS, Bengaluru. It was also contended that the transfer was executed without the consent of the Union government, citing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the UAS and the Union government for a comprehensive scheme to study the cost of cultivation of principal crops in India.
In the appeal proceedings, a cabinet decision of January 13, 2025 was cited stating that the new Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences University (Integrated) at VC Farm in Mandya District was established and thus, VC Farm was no longer part of UAS, Bengaluru.
The division bench noted that the terms and conditions of the service on which Olekar was appointed, entailed the possibility of a transfer in accordance with the rules of the university. The bench further said that he was not transferred to a post, which is either lower in rank than the current post or less remunerative. In fact, he was moved to a position with a higher grade than his current post, the bench said. The bench further observed that there is no pre-condition, in the MoU, requiring consultation with the Union government.
“Admittedly, V C Farm, Mandya, was part of the respondent/University at the time when the impugned transfer orders were issued. Thus, the appellant stands transferred to VC Farm. The question whether he is required to be absorbed in the new University or is required to be repatriated to the respondent, is not a subject matter of the present appeal,” the court said.