A later prospective statutory amendment cannot validate an earlier transfer made without lawful authority.

Dr. Geeta Kumari was initially appointed as Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in Microbiology at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University (“University”) on 06.11.2007.

In 2014, she was transferred and posted against a sanctioned post under the All India Network Project and Bio-fertilizers in the Department of Microbiology.

On 18.05.2025, Office Order No. 76, issued under the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, transferred her from the Department of Microbiology, College of Basic Science and Humanities, to the Banana Research Centre, Goraul, Vaishali.

She was relieved on 28.05.2025 and subsequently joined at the transferred place.

The respondent challenged the transfer before the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11716 of 2025.

By order dated 11.09.2025, the Single Judge held that the Vice-Chancellor was not competent under the Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University Act, 2016 (“Act, 2016”) to pass the transfer order, set aside the transfer and relieving orders, and directed restoration and acceptance of the respondent’s joining on her earlier post at the University.

The University and its officials preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

During the appeal, the appellants relied upon Section 12(2) of the Act, 2016 and a subsequent Gazette notification dated 20.12.2025 inserting Clause 3(7) in the University Statutes, expressly conferring power upon the Vice-Chancellor to transfer employees.

The respondent contended that the amendment was prospective and could not validate the transfer order dated 18.05.2025.

Whether the Vice-Chancellor possessed statutory authority under Section 12(2) or Section 12(3) of the Act, 2016 to transfer the respondent on 18.05.2025?

Whether the power of delegation under Section 12(4)(xv) of the University Statutes authorised the Vice-Chancellor to transfer employees in the absence of any specific delegation by the Board?

Whether the Gazette notification dated 20.12.2025, which expressly conferred transfer power upon the Vice-Chancellor, could retrospectively validate the transfer order dated 18.05.2025?

Whether the Single Judge correctly set aside the transfer and relieving orders and directed restoration of the respondent to her earlier post?

The Court considered Section 12(2) of the Act, 2016, which designates the Vice-Chancellor as the principal executive and academic officer and empowers him to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to decisions of the University authorities.

Section 12(3), as relied upon by the appellants, provides a statutory appeal to the Board against action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(2).

Section 12(4)(xv) of the University Statutes empowers the Board to delegate its powers to specified University authorities, including the Vice-Chancellor, but such delegation must actually be made by the Board.

The Court applied the principle that a later statutory or regulatory conferment of power, particularly one expressly stated to operate from the date of notification, cannot retrospectively validate an action taken without authority under the law then in force.

The Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on Section 12(2), holding that the Vice-Chancellor’s general power of supervision and control did not, by itself, confer a specific power to transfer employees.

Although Section 12(4)(xv) permitted delegation of the Board’s powers, the University failed to show that the Board had delegated its power of transfer to the Vice-Chancellor.

The Court further noted that Clause 3(7), inserted by the notification dated 20.12.2025, conferred the transfer power upon the Vice-Chancellor for the first time.

Since the respondent’s transfer had occurred on 18.05.2025, the subsequent notification could not retrospectively cure the absence of authority.

Accordingly, the transfer order suffered from a legal infirmity notwithstanding the appellants’ contention that the transfer was administrative, non-punitive, and made in the University’s interest.

The subsequent notification dated 20.12.2025 could not retrospectively validate the earlier transfer order.

Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order dated 11.09.2025, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and thereby upheld the setting aside of the transfer and relieving orders and the direction to restore and accept the respondent’s joining on her earlier post.