Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aabhash Rohilla @ Aabhas Rohilla vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 July, 2022
118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-15839-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 25, 2022
Aabhash Rohilla @ Aabhas Rohilla
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional AG Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner, already working as a clerk in the Civil Secretariat, inter
alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside/
quashing of list (Annexure P-4) whereby petitioner has now been asked to join
afresh and allocated the Department of Town and Country Planning, pursuant to
impugned revised final result dated 23.06.2022 (Annexure P-3), alleging that
this shall affect his seniority.
2. Petitioner was selected on the post of Clerk against advertisement
No.5/2019 under BCA category vide pre revised result dated 03.09.2020. He
was issued appointment letter dated 08.09.2020 (Annexure P-1) and
accordingly, he joined the office respondent No.1. Vide an order/judgment
dated 25.04.2022 passed by this Court, the result ibid was quashed.
Accordingly, Commission declared the revised final result dated 23.06.2022
(Annexure P-3). After the declaration of revised final result, allocation list
(Annexure P-4) for the post of Clerks was issued. Petitioner has been allotted
the Department of Town and Country Planning i.e., respondent No.3. Vide an
1 of 2
order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-6), petitioner has been relieved from his
current post of Clerk, Haryana Civil Secretariat (respondent No.1) with
immediate effect to join the new Department as allotted by the Commission.
3. On advance service, learned State counsel appears and opposes
issuance of notice of motion.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
casefile.
5. Petitioner was relieved from the office of respondent No.1 directing
to join the Department allotted by respondent No.2-Commission, which, at
worst, amounts to transfer only. Transfer being matter of administrative
exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless
it is a case of extreme hardship. The case in hand does not seem to be such so as
to deserve any indulgence. Moreover, to transfer an official, or not to, is sole
discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Not doing or
doing so is not a punishment, but an integral part of service conditions.
6. No grounds for interference are made out. Dismissed.
7. It is however, made clear that respondents are expected to give
benefit of continuity of service rendered by petitioner in past, regardless of
whichever Department he is placed in. Change of department, caused by
revision of result, is attributable entirely to the respondents and for no fault of
petitioner, he can-not thus be denied benefit of his past service.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
July 25, 2022
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
