CWP-20942 IN Sr. No.278 Abhey Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN quashing petitioners’ of clause 24.07.2023 has been mutual transfers 2. Transfer Policy Computer etc.) in Polytechnics continuous compulso the process can be exercised Government 20942-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH No.278 Singh and others Versus Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, Mr.Vardaan Seth, Advocate, for Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Addl. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed inter the order dated 06.09.2024, petitioners’ applications for mutual transfer 1(vii) of the ‘Online Transfer 24.07.2023 (for short, ‘the Transfer Policy’). sought directing the second respondent transfers in terms of the aforementioned As per facts of the case in Policy for Government employees Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Polytechnics. It prescribes that every continuous stay in a Polytechnic in the same compulsorily. It also prescribes under clause process of online transfers, there will be exercised within fifteen days therefrom. Government notified a transfer drive which PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20942-2024 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 .... Petitioners Versus ... Respondents TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Advocate, with for the petitioners. Addl. A.G. Haryana. inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari 06.09.2024, Annexure P-28, whereby transfer have been rejected in disregard Transfer Policy for Teaching Staff’ dated Policy’). Further, a writ of mandamus respondent to allow and execute their ementioned clause. in brief, the Government notified employees (Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Engineering, Mechanical Engineering every Lecturer completing five years’ same town/city shall be transferred lause 1(vii) that after completion be option of mutual transfers which therefrom. In terms of the Policy, which culminated with issuance 1 08.04.2025 Petitioners Respondents certiorari the disregard dated mandamus their notified Engineering, gineering years’ transferred completion of which the issuance of MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20942 final transfer petitioner Govt. Polytechnic, Polytechnic, petitioner Govt. Polytechnic, Polytechnic, service at 2.1. Policy which of completion for mutual and P-8, and date, Annexures They again Annexures 2.2. titled Abhey direction transfer in the respondents be acted final transfer process was some Lecturers, had been 20942-2024 transfer order of Lecturers dated 29.02.2024, er no.1 was transferred from B.K.N. Polytechnic, Hisar; petitioner no.2 Polytechnic, Hisar, to B.K.N. Govt. petitioner no.3 was transferred from B.K.N. Polytechnic, Hisar; and petitioner Polytechnic, Hisar, to B.K.N. Govt. Polytechnic, their respective places of posting. In terms of the provision under which entitles the teachers to seek completion of transfer process, petitioners mutual transfer vide representations and petitioners no.3 and 4 submitted Annexures P-11 and P-12. The same again submitted representations for Annexures P-15 to P-18, but to no effect. This forced them to file writ Abhey Singh and others v. State of to the second respondent to act in terms of clause 1(vii) of the Policy. respondents was that, the requests for upon only after completion of transfer order dated 29.02.2024, it was complete since there were certain Lecturers, wherein order of status quo granted. 29.02.2024, Annexure P-6, whereby B.K.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul, no.2 was transferred from Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul. Similarly, B.K.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul, petitioner no.4 was transferred from Govt. Polytechnic, Narnaul. They joined posting. under clause 1(vii) of the Transfer mutual transfer within fifteen days petitioners no.1 and 2 submitted requests dated 06.03.2024, Annexures P submitted such representations of even same were not decided for no reason. for the purpose, dated 28.03.2024, writ petition, CWP No.15693 of 2024 of Haryana and another, seeking act upon their requests for mutual Policy. The only objection taken for mutual transfer were required of online transfer drive. Despite could not be said that the transfer certain petitions filed in this Court quo regarding their place of posting 2 whereby Narnaul, to Govt. Similarly, Narnaul, to Govt. joined Transfer days requests P-7 even reason. 28.03.2024, 2024 seeking a mutual taken by required to the transfer Court by posting MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20942 2.3. the following 2.4. to decide with law, 09.08.2024, the competent approached letters on this Court, 20942-2024 The objection was rejected, following observations: 5. There is no dispute that mutual transfer in terms of sub Online Transfer Policy, as transfer drive, final transfer order whereby the petitioners were They have made requests stipulated period of fifteen days which was culmination of the for not acting upon their representations filed by some teachers of petitioners have no concern, Besides, mere pendency of teachers can have no effect on made by the petitioners in terms of the Policy, nor can it be requests pending for decision. 6. In view thereof, the petition respondent-Director General, (Directorate of Technical Education) petitioners’ requests/representations 06.03.2024, in accordance receiving a certified copy of this In purported compliance of the petitioners’ representations law, the second respondent conveyed 09.08.2024, Annexures P-24 and P-25, that competent authority after consideration. approached this Court by filing the instant the ground that the same were Court, as also clause 1(vii) of the Transfer and the petition was allowed with that the petitioners are entitled to seek sub clause (vii) of Clause 1 of also that on completion of order dated 29.02.2024 was issued, were transferred to different places. for mutual transfer within days from the final transfer order, the transfer process. The only ground representations is a few pending cases of the Department, to which nor are they parties in those cases. of litigation of some individual on the requests for mutual transfer terms of sub clause (vii) of Clause a ground to refuse or to keep decision. petition is allowed and the second General, Higher Education Department Education) is directed to decide requests/representations for mutual transfer, dated with law, within two weeks this order. the directions issued by this Cou representations for mutual transfer in accordance conveyed to them vide letters dated that their cases had been ‘filed’ ideration. Therefore, the petitioners instant petition challenging the said in violation of directions issued Transfer Policy. 3 with seek the the issued, places. the order, ground cases the cases. individual transfer Clause 1 the second Department the dated of Court accordance dated by petitioners said issued by MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20942 2.5. fresh detailed mutual transfer, following 3. rejection they have violation mutual transfer irrespective it has been second respondent 20942-2024 During pendency of the petition detailed order, dated 06.09.2024, declining transfer, which has also been impugned following effect: In pursuance to the On being covered under the policy, order dated 29.02.2024. Thereafter, their representations dated 06.03.2024, transfer. The request of the competent authority and found carried out, the officers will be they were working for a long transfer orders under Online and it would defeat the very Policy for which the same was Whereas, the main purpose transfer policy is to ensure equitable of Lecturers in a fair and transparent academic interest of students amongst teacher and if the transfer at the same place from allowed then the main vision bedefeated. Learned senior counsel for of the petitioners’ requests for have remained posted at the same stations of the Policy itself, clause 1(vii) transfer within fifteen days of irrespective of the duration of their posting been contended that the said ground respondent at the time of decision petition the second respondent passed declining the petitioners’ requests impugned herein. The order is to Online Transfer Policy, the petitioners policy, were transferred vide common Thereafter, the petitioners submitted 06.03.2024, requesting for mutual petitioners was considered by found that if the mutual transfers be posted at the same station where long period of time before issuing Online Transfer Policy dated 29.02.2024 very purpose of the Online Transfer was framed. purpose of introducing the online equitable and need based distribution transparent manner so as to protect students and to maximize job satisfaction request of the lecturers of mutual from where they were transferred vision and intent of the policy will the petitioners has contended that mutual transfer on the ground that stations for a very long time, is 1(vii) whereof explicitly entitles them conclusion of the transfer drive posting at a particular station. Secondly ground of rejection was not taken by of the earlier petition filed by them 4 passed a for the petitioners common submitted mutual the are where the 29.02.2024 Transfer online distribution the satisfaction mutual transferred is will that that is in them to drive Secondly, the them MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20942 on the same account also, contended petitioners’ provisions the prayer any valid 4. the petitioners to mutual impugned stipulation from seeking 5. considered. 6. Policy which of completion 6.1. transfer order transfer within 20942-2024 same issue which was allowed vide also, the objection is unsustainable. contended that there was no occasion for petitioners’ prayer of mutual transfer as provisions of clause 1(vii) of the Policy. prayer are unwarranted and not germane basis in the light of explicit terms Per contra, learned State counsel petitioners at one station in the concerned mutual transfer. Accordingly, their requests impugned order. He, however, is not in a stipulation in the transfer policy which bars seeking mutual transfer. Submissions made by learned considered. As apparent on record, there which permits mutual transfer amon completion of the transfer drive, which 1. (vii) After the completion there will be option of mutual exercised within 15 days of process. The mutual transfers years and in case, one of the incumbent shall have to participate drive irrespective of the timefra Undisputedly, the transfer drive order dated 29.02.2024, and the petitioners within fifteen days therefrom, on vide order dated 17.07.2024. On this unsustainable. Thirdly, learned senior counsel the second respondent to reject as it had been made strictly as The reasons put forth in rejecting germane to the issue, nor do they form terms of the Policy. counsel contends that longer stay concerned Polytechnics disentitles them requests were rightly rejected vide a position to dispute that there is bars the Lecturers having longer stay learned counsel for the parties have been is explicit provision in the Transfer amongst lecturers within fifteen days which reads as under: completion of the process of online transfers, mutual transfers. This option can of the completion of online transfer transfers shall be valid for a period of five the incumbents gets retired, the other participate in the next online transfer timeframes. drive concluded with issuance of petitioners made requests for mutual on 06.03.2024. The only ground 5 this counsel the per rejecting form stay of them the is no stay been Transfer days transfers, be transfer five other transfer the mutual ground of MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20942 rejection of from where there is no having longer to state, transfer requests ‘main vision unambiguous Policy is fair and transparent and to maximise itself permits completion allowing line therewith. continuance be conducive to job sati concluding the petitioners’ colourable defeat the 7. mentioned when the litigation second respondent 20942-2024 of their requests is longer stay in where they have been transferred vide no such stipulation in the Transfer longer stay from seeking mutual transfer. as recorded in the impugned requests made by the petitioners vision and intent’ of the Policy. In fact, guous terms of the Policy. The ‘to ensure equitable and need-based transparent manner so as to protect maximise job satisfaction among permits the Lecturers to seek mutual completion of the transfer drive. Resultantly, mutual transfer will defeat the therewith. And there is nothing to continuance of the petitioners at the stations conducive to academic interests of the satisfaction amongst teachers. Thus, concluding that the reasoning recorded by petitioners’ requests for mutual transfer rable exercise of power to circumvent their rights. Further, it cannot be lost sight mentioned in the impugned order, was not the petitioners earlier approached by filing CWP No.15693 of 2024, respondent to decide their requests in their respective places of posting vide order dated 29.02.2024, though Transfer Policy which bars Lecturers transfer. Therefore, there is no basis order, that acceptance of mutual petitioners will ‘defeat the very purpose’ fact, the reasoning is in violation stated purpose of introducing based distribution of Lecturers in protect academic interests of students amongst teachers’; clause 1(vii) whereof mutual transfer within fifteen days Resultantly, there is no basis to contend that intent of the Policy; rather, it is to indicate even prima facie that stations they have been posted will the students, or that it will act counter Thus, this Court has no doubts by the second respondent to reject transfer is for extraneous reasons. It is circumvent the terms of the Policy and sight of that the ground of rejection, not taken by the second respondent approached this Court in the first round 2024, which was allowed directing requests for mutual transfer in accordance 6 posting though Lecturers basis mutual purpose’ or violation of the in a students whereof days of that is in that not counter s in reject is a and rejection, as respondent round of the accordance MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20942 with law. Transfer unreasonable terms of the of clause were required order. Therefore, 8. submitted requirements that the same irregularity. accepted. 9. the respondent issue posting copy of this petition quantified the respondents 08.04.2025 Maninder 20942-2024 Instead of doing so and deciding Policy, the impugned decision unreasonable and perverse reasoning which the Policy, as discussed herein before. 1 entitling the Lecturers to mutual required to be considered, was not Therefore, it is unsustainable in the Still further, apparently the itted by the petitioners, vide letters requirements of sub-clause (vii) of clause same violate any of the terms irregularity. Accordingly, there is no reason In view of the discussion, the respondents to accept the petitioners’ posting orders accordingly within this order. The petitioners are quantified as `50,000 for each one respondents within the period stipulated 08.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : deciding the requests as per terms of decision was taken on the basis which is an infraction of unequivocal before. The relevant sub-clause (vii) mutual transfer whereunder the requests not even referred to in the impugned eyes of law. the requests for mutual transfer letters dated 06.03.2024, are as per clause 1. It is not the respondents’ case of the Policy or suffer from any reason why the requests should not the petition is allowed by directing petitioners’ requests for mutual transfer, and one week of receiving a certified also held entitled to costs of one of them which shall be paid stipulated above. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes Yes 7 the of unequivocal (vii) requests impugned transfer the case any not be directing and certified the paid by DAHIYA) MANINDER 2025.04.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.