The Federal Supreme Council announces the decision of a university to transfer an employee

The Federal Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decision of the university president to transfer an employee from her position to another department, confirming in the rationale that the employer intended to separate the claimant and her work that it occupies and not redistribute it to the public interest.

In the details, an employee filed a lawsuit calling for the cancellation of the university’s president’s decision to transfer it to the Facilitation Department and to consider it as if it were not, and to have a right to a child allowance retroactively.

She said in her lawsuit that she works as a director of the university’s recruitment department, and then she was surprised by the decision of the university president to transfer her to an educational director position, considering that this decision violated the law, and she was surprised to stop the payment of a child allowance retroactively in violation of the law.

A first-degree court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit, and the Appeals Court upheld it, then the plaintiff appealed this ruling, explaining that the ruling violated the law and erred in its application, as he considered the decision to transfer it legitimate without noting that this decision did not observe the established rules for transfer, nor did he adhere to job titles Approved, which must be reversed.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that the university directed the immediate transfer of the plaintiff from its administration, the director of the Employment and Resettlement Department to work, the director of a department in another department without naming a specific job, or naming the department transferred to it, and then the certainty is in the defendant’s side She intended to separate the complainant and her work that she occupied, and not redistribute it in a way that is in the public interest.

The court ruled to partially annul the preliminary ruling in the decision he issued rejecting the request to cancel the decision to transfer the plaintiff and the judiciary again to cancel this decision, and to support the verdict in the ruling that he rejected the rest of the requests.