1 CWP-23289-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-23289-2026 Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 NASIB SINGH ....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner's application seeking reversion/transfer from the post of PGT (Psychology) to the post of JBT under Rule 31(a)(ii) of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 has been rejected, being without jurisdiction, non-speaking and having been passed by an incompetent authority; and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No.1, namely, the PARUL VERMA 2026.07.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 2 CWP-23289-2026 Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Haryana, being the competent appointing authority, to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, having been passed by an authority not competent to decide the petitioner's application seeking reversion/transfer under Rule 31(a)(ii) of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016. 2.1. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a JBT Teacher and was subsequently selected and appointed as PGT (Psychology) by respondent No.1. Owing to compelling personal and family circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.01.2026 seeking reversion/transfer to the post of JBT in terms of Rule 31(a)(ii) of the 2016 Rules. He further contends that although the petitioner's application was duly forwarded through the prescribed channel, respondent No.4, instead of forwarding the same to respondent No.1, who is the competent appointing authority, proceeded to reject the petitioner's claim by passing the impugned order. It is argued that respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the petitioner's request. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and respondent PARUL VERMA 2026.07.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 3 CWP-23289-2026 No.1 be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 2.2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer to the limited extent that the petitioner would be satisfied if his application/representation dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) is decided by respondent No.1/competent authority by passing a speaking order within a time-bound period. 3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.1/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the application/representation dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the application/representation dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 02 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondent. PARUL VERMA 2026.07.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. 4 CWP-23289-2026 5. In the event of any deviation from or non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court by respondent No.1/competent authority, the petitioner shall be entitled to costs of ₹55,000/-, recoverable from respondent No.1/competent authority. 6. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 28.07.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PARUL VERMA 2026.07.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.