Abhey Sing Singh and others oners v. vs State of Ha Haryana and another ndents
Case Details
CWP-2094 20942-2024 1 IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGAR PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IGARH Sr. No.278 o.278 CWP-20942-2024 .2025 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 Abhey Sing Singh and others oners .... Petitioners Versus Versus State of Ha Haryana and another ndents ... Respondents CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TR TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Ad Mr.Vardaan Seth, Advocate, fo Advocate, with for the petitioners. Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Addl. Addl. A.G. Haryana. TRIBHUV UVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inte inter alia seeking a writ of certiora tiorari quashing the order dated 06.09.2024, 2024, Annexure P-28, whereby the petitioners’ ioners’ applications for mutual transfe transfer have been rejected in disregar isregard of clause 1(vii) of the ‘Online Transfer nsfer Policy for Teaching Staff’ date dated 24.07.2023 .2023 (for short, ‘the Transfer Policy Policy’). Further, a writ of mandamu damus has been sought directing the second respo respondent to allow and execute the their mutual tran transfers in terms of the aforementio mentioned clause. 2. As per facts of the case in in brief, the Government notifie notified Transfer Po Policy for Government employee ployees (Lecturer in Civil Engineerin neering, Computer puter Engineering, Electrical Engin Engineering, Mechanical Engineerin ineering etc.) in Pol Polytechnics. It prescribes that ever every Lecturer completing five year years’ continuous nuous stay in a Polytechnic in the sa same town/city shall be transferre nsferred compulso ulsorily. It also prescribes under clau lause 1(vii) that after completion etion of the process rocess of online transfers, there will be be option of mutual transfers whic which can be exe exercised within fifteen days there therefrom. In terms of the Policy, the Governmen rnment notified a transfer drive wh which culminated with issuance ance of MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-2094 20942-2024 2 final transf transfer order of Lecturers dated 29.0 29.02.2024, Annexure P-6, whereb hereby petitioner er no.1 was transferred from B.K.N B.K.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul, naul, to Govt. Poly Polytechnic, Hisar; petitioner no no.2 was transferred from Gov Govt. Polytechnic technic, Hisar, to B.K.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul. Similarl imilarly, petitioner ioner no.3 was transferred from B.K.N B.K.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul, naul, to Govt. Poly Polytechnic, Hisar; and petitioner ioner no.4 was transferred from Gov Govt. Polytechnic technic, Hisar, to B.K.N. Govt. Pol Polytechnic, Narnaul. They joine joined service at their respective places of posting. osting. 2.1. In terms of the provision und under clause 1(vii) of the Transf Transfer Policy whic which entitles the teachers to seek mutual transfer within fifteen day days of completi mpletion of transfer process, petitione etitioners no.1 and 2 submitted reques requests for mutual utual transfer vide representations dated 06.03.2024, Annexures P P-7 and P-8, an and petitioners no.3 and 4 submi submitted such representations of eve even date, Anne Annexures P-11 and P-12. The same same were not decided for no reaso reason. They again again submitted representations for for the purpose, dated 28.03.202 3.2024, Annexures xures P-15 to P-18, but to no effect. 2.2. This forced them to file writ writ petition, CWP No.15693 of 202 2024 titled Abhe bhey Singh and others v. State of of Haryana and another, seeking eking a direction to the second respondent to act act upon their requests for mutu mutual transfer in in terms of clause 1(vii) of the Po Policy. The only objection taken aken by the respond espondents was that, the requests for for mutual transfer were required ired to be acted upon only after completion of of online transfer drive. Despite the final transf ansfer order dated 29.02.2024, it could not be said that the transf ansfer process wa was complete since there were cert certain petitions filed in this Court urt by some Lectu ecturers, wherein order of status qu quo regarding their place of postin osting had been granted. MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-2094 20942-2024 3 2.3. The objection was rejected, and the petition was allowed wi with the followin ollowing observations: 5.
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute that that the petitioners are entitled to see seek mutual transfer in terms of su sub clause (vii) of Clause 1 of the Online Transfer Policy, as also that on completion of the transfer drive, final transfer or order dated 29.02.2024 was issue issued, whereby the petitioners were were transferred to different place places. They have made requests for mutual transfer within the stipulated period of fifteen da days from the final transfer orde order, which was culmination of the the transfer process. The only groun ground for not acting upon their repre representations is a few pending case cases filed by some teachers of of the Department, to which the petitioners have no concern, nor are they parties in those case cases. Besides, mere pendency of of litigation of some individu dividual teachers can have no effect on on the requests for mutual transf transfer made by the petitioners in term terms of sub clause (vii) of Clause lause 1 of the Policy, nor can it be a ground to refuse or to keep the ision. requests pending for decision. 6. In view thereof, the pe petition is allowed and the secon second respondent-Director General, neral, Higher Education Departme artment (Directorate of Technical Edu Education) is directed to decide the petitioners’ requests/represent resentations for mutual transfer, date dated 06.03.2024, in accordance with law, within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of th this order. 2.4. In purported compliance of the directions issued by this Cou Court to decide the petitioners’ representations tions for mutual transfer in accordanc ordance with law, law, the second respondent conve conveyed to them vide letters date dated 09.08.2024 .2024, Annexures P-24 and P-25, tha that their cases had been ‘filed’ by the compe competent authority after considera ideration. Therefore, the petitione titioners approached oached this Court by filing the insta instant petition challenging the sa said letters on the ground that the same were in violation of directions issued sued by this Court, ourt, as also clause 1(vii) of the Trans Transfer Policy. MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-2094 20942-2024 4 2.5. During pendency of the petitio petition the second respondent passed passed a fresh detail detailed order, dated 06.09.2024, decl declining the petitioners’ requests for mutual tran transfer, which has also been impu impugned herein. The order is to the following wing effect: In pursuance to the On Online Transfer Policy, the petitione titioners being covered under the polic policy, were transferred vide commo ommon order dated 29.02.2024. Ther Thereafter, the petitioners submitte bmitted their representations dated 06 06.03.2024, requesting for mutu mutual transfer. The request of the petitioners was considered by the competent authority and foun found that if the mutual transfers are carried out, the officers will be be posted at the same station whe where they were working for a long long period of time before issuing the transfer orders under Online nline Transfer Policy dated 29.02.202 02.2024 and it would defeat the very very purpose of the Online Transf Transfer Policy for which the same was was framed. Whereas, the main pu purpose of introducing the onlin online transfer policy is to ensure equ equitable and need based distributio ribution of Lecturers in a fair and trans transparent manner so as to protect the academic interest of students dents and to maximize job satisfactio sfaction amongst teacher and if the request of the lecturers of mutu mutual transfer at the same place from from where they were transferred ferred is allowed then the main visio vision and intent of the policy wi will bedefeated. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended th that rejection of the petitioners’ requests for mutual transfer on the ground th that they have have remained posted at the same sta stations for a very long time, is is in violation of the Policy itself, clause 1(vii) (vii) whereof explicitly entitles them them to mutual tran transfer within fifteen days of conclusion of the transfer driv drive irrespective pective of the duration of their posting osting at a particular station. Secondl ondly, it has been been contended that the said ground round of rejection was not taken by the second resp respondent at the time of decision of the earlier petition filed by the them MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-2094 20942-2024 5 on the sam same issue which was allowed vide vide order dated 17.07.2024. On th this account als also, the objection is unsustainabl ainable. Thirdly, learned senior couns counsel contended nded that there was no occasion for the second respondent to reject the petitioners’ ioners’ prayer of mutual transfer as as it had been made strictly as per provisions isions of clause 1(vii) of the Policy. The reasons put forth in rejectin ejecting the prayer rayer are unwarranted and not germa germane to the issue, nor do they for form any valid basis in the light of explicit terms terms of the Policy. 4. Per contra, learned State cou counsel contends that longer stay stay of the petition etitioners at one station in the concer concerned Polytechnics disentitles the them to mutual utual transfer. Accordingly, their reque requests were rightly rejected vide the impugned gned order. He, however, is not in a a position to dispute that there is is no stipulation lation in the transfer policy which bars bars the Lecturers having longer sta stay from seekin seeking mutual transfer. 5. Submissions made by learned arned counsel for the parties have bee been idered. considered. 6. As apparent on record, there is explicit provision in the Transf Transfer Policy whi which permits mutual transfer amo amongst lecturers within fifteen day days of completi mpletion of the transfer drive, which hich reads as under: 1. (vii) After the completion letion of the process of online transfer ransfers, there will be option of mutu mutual transfers. This option can be exercised within 15 days of of the completion of online transf transfer process. The mutual transfers nsfers shall be valid for a period of fiv five years and in case, one of the the incumbents gets retired, the oth other incumbent shall have to parti participate in the next online transf transfer drive irrespective of the timefr timeframes. 6.1. Undisputedly, the transfer driv drive concluded with issuance of the transfer ord order dated 29.02.2024, and the pet petitioners made requests for mutu mutual transfer wi within fifteen days therefrom, on on 06.03.2024. The only ground ound of MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-2094 20942-2024 6 rejection of of their requests is longer stay in in their respective places of postin posting from where where they have been transferred vid vide order dated 29.02.2024, thoug though there is no no such stipulation in the Trans Transfer Policy which bars Lecture ecturers having long longer stay from seeking mutual tra transfer. Therefore, there is no bas basis to state, as recorded in the impugned order, that acceptance of mutu mutual transfer req requests made by the petitioners oners will ‘defeat the very purpose’ pose’ or ‘main visio vision and intent’ of the Policy. In fa fact, the reasoning is in violation lation of unambiguo guous terms of the Policy. The stated purpose of introducing the Policy is ‘to ensure equitable and need-ba based distribution of Lecturers in in a fair and tra transparent manner so as to prote protect academic interests of studen students and to max maximise job satisfaction among ongst teachers’; clause 1(vii) whereo whereof itself perm permits the Lecturers to seek mutua mutual transfer within fifteen days days of completion letion of the transfer drive. Resultantl ultantly, there is no basis to contend th that allowing mutual transfer will defeat the intent of the Policy; rather, it is is in line therew therewith. And there is nothing to to indicate even prima facie th that continuance nuance of the petitioners at the station stations they have been posted will not be conduciv nducive to academic interests of the the students, or that it will act count counter to job sati satisfaction amongst teachers. Thu Thus, this Court has no doubts s in concluding luding that the reasoning recorded by by the second respondent to reje reject the petition etitioners’ requests for mutual transfer ransfer is for extraneous reasons. It is is a colourable rable exercise of power to circumv rcumvent the terms of the Policy an and defeat the their rights. 7. Further, it cannot be lost sight sight of that the ground of rejection, ction, as mentioned ioned in the impugned order, was no not taken by the second responde pondent when the the petitioners earlier approached ched this Court in the first round ound of litigation by filing CWP No.15693 of 2024 2024, which was allowed directing the MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. second resp respondent to decide their requests quests for mutual transfer in accordanc ordance CWP-2094 20942-2024 7 with law. Instead of doing so and deciding eciding the requests as per terms of the Transfer Policy, the impugned decision ecision was taken on the basis of unreasonab asonable and perverse reasoning whic which is an infraction of unequivoc uivocal terms of th the Policy, as discussed herein bef before. The relevant sub-clause (vi (vii) of clause 1 entitling the Lecturers to mutua mutual transfer whereunder the reques requests were requir required to be considered, was not not even referred to in the impugne pugned order. Ther Therefore, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Still further, apparently the the requests for mutual transf transfer submitted itted by the petitioners, vide letters etters dated 06.03.2024, are as per the requiremen irements of sub-clause (vii) of clause clause 1. It is not the respondents’ cas case that the sa same violate any of the terms of the Policy or suffer from an any irregularity ularity. Accordingly, there is no reaso reason why the requests should not not be accepted. 9. In view of the discussion, the the petition is allowed by directin irecting the respond espondents to accept the petitioners’ ners’ requests for mutual transfer, an and issue postin posting orders accordingly within one week of receiving a certifie certified copy of th this order. The petitioners are also held entitled to costs of the petition qua quantified as (cid:1)50,000 for each one one of them which shall be paid paid by the respond espondents within the period stipulated ulated above. .2025 08.04.2025 Maninder IYA) (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes Yes MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.