1. Heard Sri Prathap Narayan Sanghi, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Raja Shekar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Siva, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner is challenging the orders issued in No. EFLU/Admn/F. No. 1772/2021 dated 19.02.2021 by the respondent No. 1 and 2 effecting his transfer-cum-permanent relocation with immediate effect without assigning any reasons.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Reader through an Advertisement No. 28/2003 issued by the respondent No. 1, wherein it was specifically stated about the available vacancies at their respective locations. The petitioner did not chose to apply to the vacancies that were available at the English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) Campuses at Lucknow and Shillong. At the time of advertisement the petitioner was working in the Department of Technical Education as a Lecturer in English, which was a transferable post. The sole purpose of applying in the respondent No. 1 University for the post advertised was that it was a non-transferable post.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a norm and practice, transferring and relocating the faculty members of the Department of Training and Development to the Department of Education does not happen as an exigency of service. The rationale is only for transfer of an employee from one institution to another facing a shortfall. The petitioner was sent by the Government of India to work on its Aided projects to countries such as Afghanistan and Vietnam. In fact there has been no complaint from any quarter whatsoever against the petitioner and he had been discharging his duties to the best of the satisfaction of his superiors, Research Scholars and students.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that before effecting such transfer-relocation along with his post, the respondent have never given him any opportunity or notice seeking his consent or opinion or assigned any genuine reason or such a transfer-relocation. Further, Regulation 17(K) was incorporated in 2016-17. After his appointment these provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. The Regulation 17(K) is not spelt out clearly as to the policy and modalities to be followed to transfer of the employees. If it is a transfer it should indicate the period of transfer but sadly the regulation is silent about the duration. In the absence of such clarity, a Regulation of this nature can be arbitrarily used by the person in power. The transfer of the petitioner along with his post which is tantamount to a permanent relocation to Shillong and to the Department of Education where he have no expertise will make the students under him presently at the present posting suffer and their curriculum will be affected.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that transferring the petitioner permanently along with his post to an entirely different department and different campus in a different State which requires an entirely different type of expertise not supporting him either his qualification or his area of expertise in teaching is unprecedented and untenable. The transfer is vindictive and that there is no any administrative reason for transfer during the lockdown of the University and the said act of the University clearly shows that the transfer is tainted with a mala fide intentions.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the left hand of the petitioner is partially functional and he need help even to button and unbutton his shirt and therefore his transfer would badly affect his health. The respondents without considering these aspects and without considering the past and continuing relentless services rendered by him and without asking his consent for this transfer-cum-permanent relocation have arbitrarily affected and he is single parent to his son, who is pursuing studies in Hyderabad and requested to allow the writ petition.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following Judgment:

"i) Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 610

ii) S.P. Dubey Vs. MPSRT Corp. and another AIR 1991 SCC 276"

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, basing on the counter submits that the petitioner has no right to continue at a particular place and transfer is not only an incidence of service but also a condition of service. In the absence of pleadings with respect to incompetence of authority passing the transfer order and with respect to specific allegations of malice in fact and law and the impugned order is not in violation by the respondent No. 1.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that the Director, Shillong Campus vide letter No. 27.05.2020 requested the EFLU Headquarters at Hyderabad to strengthen Training and Development at Shillong Campus by posting a Professor of Training and Development on transfer from Hyderabad to fulfill the Government of India initiative announced by the Hon'ble Prime Minister. As the petitioner is exceptionally qualified and eligible to discharge the duties at the Center for English and Foreign Languages Training, he was transferred and posted at Shillong Campus, which operates the proposed Centre and he was relieved from Hyderabad on the same day.

11. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that in the Advertisement No. 28/2003 dated 02.01.2004 at Sl. No. II and III it was specifically stated that a post of each of Reader and Lecturer respectively is available at Lucknow Campus, Lucknow and there was no mention of place of posting for the remaining posts. Further, the applications were invited for the centers in "Institute Service". Section 2(s) of the Act defines 'University' to mean the Central Institute of English, Hyderabad, renamed as Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad. Section 3(2) of the Act declares that the Headquarters of the University shall be at Hyderabad, campuses at Lucknow and Shillong. EFLU is the successor of the erstwhile Central Institute for English and Foreign Languages under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, persons who were recruited in the Institute service are liable be posted at Hyderabad, Lucknow or Shillong unless the post applied for at the time of recruitment is specified to be a particular place. In the past history of EFLU such transfers have taken place between 2014 and 2018. Six (6) teaching faculty and three (3) non-teaching personnel were transferred between Hyderabad, Shillong and Lucknow campuses.

12. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 University further submits that the nomenclature of 'Schools of study' is used at the Headquarters at Hyderabad and the nomenclature of 'Department' is employed at Lucknow and Shillong. Therefore, the School of English Language Education at Hyderabad is equivalent to Department of English Language Education at Shillong. The petitioner was working in the Department of Training and Development which is part of the School of English Language Education at Hyderabad and he has been transferred to the Department of English Language Education at Shillong Campus. There will be no change in the nature of duties, responsibilities and courses imparted at Shillong for the petitioner from those being discharged at Hyderabad. The petitioner expressed his willingness to work at Yangon, Myanmar, vide his application dated 02.04.2018 and was selected by EFLU on 10.05.2018 and when compared to Myanmar, Shillong is nearer to Hyderabad, therefore, the petitioner should not have any qualms in working at Shillong and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 relied on the following Judgments:

"i) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Vs. Shri Bhagwan and another (2001) 8 SCC 574 [LQ/SC/2001/2038]

ii) State of Punjab Vs. Naib Din (2001) 8 SCC 578 [LQ/SC/2001/2230]

iii) State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ram and another (2004) 7 SCC 405 [LQ/SC/2004/825] "

14. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3 basing on the counter submits that the arraigning the respondent No. 3 is totally unnecessary and without understanding the basic principles of law. There are no specific allegations against the respondent No. 3 in the individual capacity and the very action of the petitioner in impleading the respondent No. 3 would prove fatal to the writ petition as it suffers from the vice of mis-joinder of parties and on that solitary ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not made out any case within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjesh Khajuria case and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

15. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 relied on the following Judgment(s):

"Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. Wockhardt Limited and another (2020) 3 SCC 96"

16. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that while the petitioner was working as Professor, Department of Training and Development, School of English Language Education, EFLU, Hyderabad transferred to EFLU, Shillong on 19.02.2021 on administrative grounds. The said Transfer orders were unanimously approved "by the Executive Council of the University and the petitioner after filing the present writ petition joined duties at Shillong Campus on 30.04.2021 as per his joining report filed along with I.A. No. 3 of 2021 in W.P. No. 4773.

17. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier he worked as Lecturer and the same was transferable, as such he applied for the post of Reader in CIEFL, Hyderabad through advertisement No. 28 of 2003 issued by the respondent No. 1, wherein it specifically stated that the available vacancies and their respective locations and after selection, the petitioner joined the duty in Hyderabad. But, in the said notification it was not mentioned about the place of work for the post applied by the petitioner.

18. The Parliament through enactment dissolved the CIEFL society and established EFLU, Hyderabad from 11.01.2007. As per the said Act, every person employed immediately before the commencement of the Act in the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, shall hold such employment in the University by the same tenure and on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as the pension and gratuity as he would have held under the CIEFL, Hyderabad, if this Act had not been passed.

19. Admittedly, the main campus of CIEFL is situated at Hyderabad and Student Centers were located at Shillong and Lucknow. The petitioner was appointed as Reader in the year 2006, before establishment of EFLU and thereafter as per the new Rules and Regulations the petitioner was promoted as Professor w.e.f. 10.07.2017. Through the impugned proceedings the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to Shillong campus, but the contention of the petitioner is that he was transferred to an entirely different department and different State as the petitioner was working in the Hyderabad Campus as Professor, Department of Training and Development, School of English Language Education and now transferred and posted at the Department of English Language Education, EFL University, Shillong Campus. It shows that the Department to which the petitioner worked is not changed, but the nomenclature "School of English Language Education" is changed as "Department of English Langue Education'. Therefore, the petitioner was not transferred to an entirely different department.

20. The contention of the petitioner that he was transferred as per Regulations 17(k) of the University Act, without taking into account of his consent or opinion or assigned any genuine reasons for his transfer and therefore the said Regulation is not applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed as Reader in the year, 2006. But the petitioner was promoted as Professor under new Regulations and now the petitioner cannot take the shelter of old Regulations. Moreover, as per the Regulation 17(k) of the University Act, the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to transfer an employee from one place to another place.

21. The contention of the petitioner that the he is transferred along with post and it amounts to permanent allocation to Shillong. In the impugned orders there is no mentioning about the petitioner's transfer along with post and not mentioned that the petitioner's posting is a permanent allocation.

22. The contention of the petitioner is that as per old Rules, the respondents can transfer one post to one post, but not one place to another place. The petitioner was promoted as Professor as per new Rules and there is no prohibition to transfer the employees from one place to another place. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner not apply to the instant case and the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents squarely apply to the instant case.

23. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and the respondents have inherent powers to transfer the petitioner. Moreover, in the instant case the Executive Council of the University unanimously taken a decision to transfer the petitioner from Hyderabad Campus to Shillong Campus on administrative grounds. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned orders passed by the respondents. But, taking into account of the health condition of the petitioner as well as the petitioner being the single parent to his son, it is appropriate to direct the respondents for reconsideration to transfer the petitioner from Shillong to Hyderabad.

24. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents-University to reconsider his case for transfer from Shillong to Hyderabad on medical grounds and in the event of making such application, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks therefrom. There shall be no order as to costs.

25. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.