Medical Condition, Family Circumstances Can't Be Ignored While Rejecting Employee's Transfer Request: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has directed the English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) to reconsider a professor's representation for transfer from its Shillong campus to Hyderabad.

The court noted that the previous rejection order failed to take into account his medical and family circumstances.

The single judge bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal, while disposing of a plea filed by the Doctorate holder, opined that while the assessment of administrative requirements ordinarily falls within the University's domain, the authority was still required to genuinely reconsider the petitioner's request.

This was especially required in light of an earlier court direction that made a special reference to the Doctor's medical condition and family circumstances, the High Court added.

“…since the competent authority's proceedings dated 07.11.2023 do not demonstrate meaningful reconsideration of the petitioner's medical condition and family circumstances, or compliance with the earlier judicial directions, the rejection order warrants reconsideration. Accordingly, the University authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order after examining the relevant medical records, family circumstances and administrative requirements strictly in accordance with law within 90 working days…”, the court noted in the order.

For context, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Reader in the Centre for Training and Development at the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL), Hyderabad. After his appointment, EFL University Act was enacted in 2006.

The petitioner argued that even after the enactment, his post was associated with a specialized department located only at Hyderabad. Moreover, his pre-existing service conditions were protected under Section 4(v) of the EFL University Act, it was submitted.

The dispute between the employee and the University arose when the University transferred him from Hyderabad to Shillong in February 2021, invoking Regulation 17(k) of the University which was added subsequently in 2016-2017

Challenging this transfer, the petitioner contended that the CIEFL by-laws did not confer power upon the Vice-Chancellor to effect an inter-campus transfer. According to the Professor, since his service conditions were already protected under Section 4(v) of the EFL University Act, subsequent altering regulations couldn't be imposed on him.

For further context, a coordinate bench of the High Court had previously disposed of a plea by the Professor in August 2023, opining that though he was initially appointed as a Reader in 2006, he was subsequently promoted as Professor in 2017 under the new University regulations. In that light, the court held that the petitioner could not rely upon the erstwhile regulations to contend that the new Regulation 17(k) was inapplicable.

However, the court had then directed the University to reconsider his request for transfer back to Hyderabad on medical grounds, considering his health condition and status as a single parent.

But the Executive Council considered his representation and rejected it in November 2023, citing administrative grounds. Aggrieved, the Professor approached the High Court again, challenging both the original transfer order and the rejection of his representation.

The counsel for the petitioner, before the High Court, contended that the impugned action, which is not a routine transfer, would result in permanent relocation of the petitioner from Hyderabad to Shillong and to a different department.

The respondents submitted that the transfer was an administrative action normal for any service, taken in exercise of the power vested in the Vice-Chancellor under Regulation 17(k). The court was also told by the University that an employee has no vested right to insist upon continuation at a particular place of posting.

It was argued that the transfer from Hyderabad to Shillong was only an inter-campus transfer within the same University, and did not result in any change of employer, post, pay, seniority, tenure or other substantive service benefits.

With respect to the University Vice Chancellor's competence and source of power to effect the petitioner's inter-campus transfer, the court noted as below:

“….The University's administrative requirements may justify a transfer where the power to effect such transfer lawfully exists. However, administrative exigency cannot independently confer a power that is otherwise unavailable or override an applicable statutory restriction. The earlier order dated 04.08.2023 in W.P.No.4773 of 2021 and the subsequent order dated 12.12.2023 in W.A.No.1136 of 2023 must also be kept in view. The present challenge must be examined within the scope of the liberty granted by the Division Bench, without reopening any issue that has attained finality under the earlier judicial order….”, the court said.

About the matter that ought to be adjudged, the court noted that the absence of specific administrative reasons in the rejection proceedings raised a question as to whether the petitioner's representation was meaningfully reconsidered. It was observed that the reasoning underlying the rejection of the petitioner's request on medical grounds did not appear to be reasonable.

The court opined further that the University cannot justify the rejection merely on the grounds that the petitioner had not availed medical leave or had submitted claims for relatively small amounts as medical reimbursements. It does not establish conclusively that the petitioner was not suffering from any chronic illness, in the absence of relevant medical records, the court added.

“…The adequacy of the reasons [for rejection] must, however, be assessed with reference to the complete record, including the materials considered by the Executive Council. The legality of the original transfer order dated 19.02.2021 and the validity of the subsequent rejection proceedings dated 07.11.2023 are separate issues. The former concerns the source and extent of the University's power to transfer the petitioner, while the latter concerns compliance with the earlier judicial direction and the fairness of the decision-making process. The former must be tested against the governing statute and applicable service conditions, while the latter must satisfy the requirements of lawful, fair and reasoned administrative decision-making…”, the court clarified before parting.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.