ESIC medical teaching faculty are subject to all-India transfer liability.

The applicants, an Assistant Professor and an Associate Professor at ESIC’s Joka medical college, challenged their transfers ordered on 20 May 2023, along with the Transfer Grievance Redressal Committee’s report and subsequent orders and email.

They argued, among other things, that their recruitment was institution-specific, the transfers violated service conditions and the 2022 Transfer Policy, and the transfers were inconsistent with medical-education requirements. They sought to have the transfer-related decisions set aside.

The Tribunal considered the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicants’ transfers were liable to be set aside because they contravened statutory provisions or binding service conditions, including the asserted institution-specific nature of their appointments.

Whether the transfers involved mala fides or such a violation of the applicable Transfer Policy as to warrant judicial interference.

Whether the National Education Policy, 2020, or medical-education requirements barred the applicants’ transfers.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident and condition of service, and that a transferable employee has no vested right to remain at a particular post or place. Under Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, transfer is generally not to be interfered with unless it is vitiated by mala fides or violates a statutory provision; executive transfer guidelines do not ordinarily create an enforceable right.

The Tribunal also relied on State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 (reported in the order as 1991 AIR SC 532); National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574; and State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270, for the limited scope of judicial review of transfer decisions and the rule that courts and tribunals should not substitute their assessment of administrative needs for that of the competent authority.

The Tribunal further distinguished recruitment rules, which govern appointment and promotion, from transfers, treated as administrative actions governed here by the applicable transfer policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a statutory bar to transfer or produced concrete evidence of mala fides. It held that the earlier recruitment notifications’ references to institution-wise appointments did not prevent transfer, particularly because the applicants’ appointment conditions provided for transfer anywhere in India.

The absence of a transfer provision in the 2015 Recruitment Regulations was not decisive, since transfers were governed by administrative policy rather than recruitment rules. Having considered the asserted policy breaches, the Tribunal found only minor lapses and no substantial violation warranting intervention. It also held that the National Education Policy and medical-education recommendations did not override ESIC’s specific transfer policy.

It dismissed the Original Application and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs.