Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Malik vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 September, 2022
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
142 CWP-19544-2022
Sunil Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
144 CWP-19612-2022
Bimla Sheoran ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
145 CWP-19724-2022
Rekha Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
146 CWP-19753-2022
Janko Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
148 CWP-19771-2022
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2022 23:54:09 :::
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -2-
Sunita Malik ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
150 CWP-19783-2022
Anita Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
153 CWP-19811-2022
Wagish Kumar Duhan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
157 CWP-19832-2022
Vanita Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
162 CWP-19854-2022
Santosh Rani and another ...Petitioners
Versus
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2022 23:54:10 :::
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -3-
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
164 CWP-19859-2022
Ram Niwas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
165 CWP-19862-2022
Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
170 CWP-19896-2022
Kanta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
174 CWP-19906-2022
Raj Ahlawat ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2022 23:54:10 :::
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -4-
177 CWP-19969-2022
Savita Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Date of Decision :05.09.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Shalinder Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-19544-2022.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19811-2022
Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19771-2022.
Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-19753-2022.
Mr. Akshaydeep Singh Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19612-2022.
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19969-2022.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19906-2022.
Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner (s)
in CWPs-19896, 19783-2022.
Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19859-2022.
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWPs-19854, 19862-2022.
Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-19832-2022.
Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2022 23:54:10 :::
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -5-
in CWP-19724-2022.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that while effecting
the transfers in question, transfer policy has not been kept in mind by the
respondent-department hence, the transfers of the petitioner(s) are contrary
to the transfer policy and are liable to be set aside.
In one of the petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is that as
per the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-15108-2021
titled as Vikran Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others
decided on 24.08.2021, the respondents have to keep in mind minimum stay
of 05 years of a teacher at a particular station but, the petitioner(s) have
been transferred without completion of the said period of 05 years, which
fact renders the order of transfer bad in law and contrary to the policy
concerned.
Second grievance, which is being raised is that the teachers,
who were having lower marks in merit as compared to some of the
petitioners have been accommodated at the stations, which the petitioners
opted for, which action of the respondents also renders the transfers in
question bad in law as teachers having higher marks are to be given
preference over the teachers having lesser marks in allotting stations hence,
grievance of the petitioners needs to be redressed by the respondents
keeping in view the transfer policy.
Third grievance of the petitioners is that the marks of the
petitioners have not been correctly evaluated so as to be taken into
5 of 8
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -6-
consideration for effecting the transfers.
Fourth grievance as raised is that CNV Teachers have been
given preference over the TGTs on the ground that CNV is a district cadre,
which is being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
submitting that the CNV can not be considered as district cadre keeping in
view the rules governing the service.
Fifth grievance as raised is that some of the facts which are
concerning a particular petitioner, who is a widow and handicapped, have
not been kept in mind while effecting the transfers whereas the policy
concerned gives due weightage to the said fact while effecting the transfers.
Sixth grievance as raised by the petitioners is that the zones
which were upgraded were not correctly reflected in the NIS Portal, which
has caused prejudice to the petitioner.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without
considering the actual fact on the ground, a teacher has been declared
surplus. As per learned counsel, even at a particular station where only one
post exists and the students were already available, even the said post has
been declared surplus, which act of the respondents have been contested by
the Principal of the concerned school also but still the transfers have been
effected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that they have
already raised the grievance before the respondents concerned by way of
filing appropriate representation and at this stage, the petitioner(s) will be
satisfied in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondent-State to
consider the said representations and pass an appropriate speaking order.
Notice of motion.
6 of 8
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -7-
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and submits that as the petitioners are raising dispute with
regard to the non-adherence of various clauses of the policy, therefore, in
case petitioners have already filed a representation or if they file any
representation with the respondents within a period of two days from today,
the same will be considered in accordance with law by the respondents and
an appropriate speaking order will be passed within a period of 07 days
thereafter. In case after the decision, it is found that the petitioners are
entitled for any relief, the same will be extended to them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that keeping in
view the statement of the learned State counsel, the present petition(s) may
kindly be disposed off having been not pressed any further but prays that
keeping in view the fact that the respondents have agreed to look into the
grievance of the petitioners, the petitioner(s) be allowed to continue at their
present place of posting so that in case their claim is accepted by the
respondents, they do not suffer harassment of shifting base again.
Learned State counsel opposes the said prayer of the learned
counsel for the petitioner(s).
Keeping in view the above, the present petitions are disposed
off having been not pressed any further.
It is directed that the respondents will abide by the undertaking
as recorded hereinabove and further till the representation(s) are decided by
the respondent-department, in case the petitioners have not been relieved so
far, they be allowed to continue at their present place of posting so that in
case claim of the petitioner(s) is accepted by the respondents, they do not
suffer harassment or prejudice. It is made clear that in case claim of the
7 of 8
CWP-19544-2022 & connected cases -8-
petitioner(s) is not accepted by the respondents, the petitioners will be
bound to comply with the order of transfer so as to join at their new place of
posting.
In case, after the decision of the respondents, the petitioner(s)
feel aggrieved, they will be at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy
available with them for the redressal of their grievance.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
September 05, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
