124 

  DINESH KU STATE OF H    Present: 
 

di the ongoing Policy dated 2 2.

    
   



       UMAR Versus HARYANA AND ANOTHER
  ,-. /

Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior De Haryana. 
(.0 -1
The petition has been filed directing the respondents to permi g transfer drive 202532026 unde d 23.05.2025. On 02.02.2026, the following ord It is inter alia contended th as Employability Skill Instru 28.12.2022. Не participated in pursuant to online transfer polic because in the memo dated 14. by the respondents regarding employees in the online transfer that, ‘no post of district Nuh w the special category’. However, to, and the posts in Nuh distric drive. Resultantly, the petitioner 
 )232)*)+
 ! "#$%$&''()*)+ ...Petitioner ...Respondents
 

Deputy Advocate General, d    seeking a writ of rmit the petitioner to participate in nder the Model Online Transfer order was passed: d that the petitioner was appointed structor in ITI Gurugram on in the transfer drive initiated olicy, dated 22.06.2022. This was 4.01.2025, Annexure P33, issued ing voluntary participation of fer drive, it was clearly mentioned will be blocked due to falling in er, the stipulation was not adhered rict were blocked during transfer ner was posted to far away Hisar
er
ts
 of in er ed on ed as ed of ed in ed er ar JASPREET KAUR 2026.02.18 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

  
district which was his fourth preference. Now the Department has initiated another transfer drive on the basis of a new policy, dated 23.05.2025, but he is not being allowed to participate therein on account of his minimum tenure at the place of posting being less than one year. 3. Learned State counsel by referring to the instructions dated 03.02.2026, Annexure ‘A’, contends that the assertion that the respondents had blocked posts in Nuh district under the transfer policy dated 22.06.2022, is wrong. The posts in Nuh District were open, and the petitioner himself opted for GITI Ferozepur Zhirka, District Nuh, as his second preference. All four preferences given by the petitioner have been indicated in paragraph 5 of the instructions, which shows the first preference given by him was for GITI Berli Kalan, Rewari, and not for an institute in District Nuh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute these facts contained in the instructions. Resultantly, there is no ground for him to seek participation in the ongoing transfer drive. 5. Dismissed.  #$%$&''()*)+ 0
 
1
               
           

JASPREET KAUR 2026.02.18 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh