Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjeet Kaur And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -1- 2024:PHHC:045292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
*****
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M)
Date of Decision : 3.4.2024
Karamjeet Kaur and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
2. CWP No.6835 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045381
Santosh Yadav and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
3. CWP No.7171 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045384
Seema and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
4. CWP No.6866 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045390
Anju Kumari and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
5. CWP No.7286 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045392
Kavita Devi ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
6. CWP No.7452 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045396
Priya ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -2- 2024:PHHC:045292
7. CWP No.7550 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045397
Rekha Rani and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
8. CWP No.7575 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045398
Priyanka and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
9. CWP No.7576 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045402
Meena and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
10. CWP No.7578 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045403
Indu Bala and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
11. CWP No.7579 of 2024 2024:PHHC:045404
Divya and others ..... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Tejpal Singh Dhull, Advocate
(in CWP-6334, 6835, 7171, 6866, 7452 and 7550-2024)
Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate (in CWP-7286-2024)
Mr. Amarjit Beniwal, Advocate, for
Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
(in CWPs-7575, 7576, 7578 and 7579 of 2024)
for the petitioners
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -3- 2024:PHHC:045292
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior DAG, Haryana with
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana
---
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.:
These petitions are being decided together since the same have
been filed on similar facts claiming similar relief.
2. All the petitions have been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of
certiorari quashing the office order dated 16.3.2024, whereby the
petitioners, who are primary teachers of 2017 Batch, have been allotted
new schools pursuant to allocation of permanent districts; and a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to grant relaxation/weightage/extra
marks to female primary teachers for the purpose of allotment of schools.
3. Briefly, facts relevant for adjudication of the matters are, the
petitioners were appointed Primary Teachers (PRTs) pursuant to
advertisement no.2 of 2012 dated 8.11.2012 (hereinafter referred to as
'2017 Batch PRTs'). PRT is a District cadre post. The selection process
pursuant to the advertisement remained embroiled in litigation before this
Court, and it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.7136 of 2022 titled Vikas Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and
others, vide order dated 13.9.2022. The petitioners, like many other
candidates, were given appointment during pendency of this litigation
impugning their selection, and were temporarily allotted districts also.
The selection process as well as the petitioners' appointment were finally
upheld in Vikas Kumar case (supra), closing the entire litigation
pertaining to selection of 2017 Batch PRTs with consent of learned
counsel appearing for all the parties in all the matters, in the following
manner:
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -4- 2024:PHHC:045292
28. In the above facts and circumstances and taking into
consideration the stand of the State of Haryana as communicated by
its learned counsel, we are of the view that in the present case this
litigation of more than a decade could be put to a quietus and the
mammoth exercise of holding the selections for 9870 posts in the
year 2012 be given its full benefit. We pass the following order:
(i) The total number of advertised posts i.e. 9870 to be filled up first
from the selected candidates declared in the result dated 14.8.2014.
(ii) In the event, the selected candidates from the above category do
not join, then the remaining vacancies shall be filled up from the list
of wait-listed candidates declared alongwith successful candidates on
14.8.2014.
(iii) After filling up of the 9870 vacancies as provided above, the
2233 candidates who qualified the HTET after the cut-off date,
sometimes in June, 2013 will be appointed as per their inter se merit
enbloc below the above 9870 candidates.
(iv) In case, there still remain any wait-listed candidates from the
wait-listed list of 14.8.2014, who could not be accommodated in the
advertised posts of 9870, will be appointed enbloc as per their merit
below the 2233 candidates.
(v) The seniority will be as per their merit position in their respective
lists.
(vi) No dispute for seniority would be entertained of any candidate
inter se different lists.
(vii) No claim for seniority or for any arrears would be entertained
for any period not worked by the candidates of any of the above lists.
(viii) Salary would be paid for the period, for which such candidates
have actually worked but not paid salary after due verification of
their working both from the records and physically.
(ix) The 2012 selections will stand closed with the above
arrangement.
(x) Exercising our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we
increase the number of advertised posts beyond 9870 to
accommodate the candidates as directed above and no more.
(xi) All the appeals are disposed of as directed above.
(xii) The impugned judgment shall stand modified to the aforesaid
extent.
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -5- 2024:PHHC:045292
6. Another litigation relating to the process of permanent
district allocation was pending before a coordinate Bench of this
Court in CWP No.14553 of 2021 titled Sandeep Kumar and others
v. State of Haryana and another, which was also decided by order,
dated 02.06.2022, on the basis of consent of all the parties in the
following manner:
Learned counsel for the parties across the board are ad
idem that all the aforementioned writ petitions can be
disposed of in terms of said affidavit dated 16.03.2022
and particularly in terms of para 10 to 13 thereof, which
are reproduced as under:
"10. That after discussion with the Ld. Advocate General,
the State Govt. has come to the conclusion that new
transfer drive be started in respect of teachers appointed
before 2011 by giving them, the clear cut vacancies,
deemed/resultant vacancies and vacancies occupied by the
Guest teachers/Adhoc teachers. It is pertinent to mention
here that the posts occupied by the teachers appointed in
2017 and onwards in the districts beyond advertised posts
at present will also be given to the teachers appointed
before 2011 to avoid complications. In this respect, fresh
options of 21 districts including new district Charkhi
Dadri will be sought from the teachers appointed before
2011. This inter district transfer will be made in groups of
teachers appointed in 2004, 2008 and 2011 under 'Cadre
Change Policy' dated 06.09.2018 as per scores given in
this policy and as per their options. Copy of 'Cadre
Change Policy' 6.9.2018 attached as Annexure-R1. The
petitioners in the present petition have also prayed for the
same relief.
11. That then the process to allocate the districts to the
teachers appointed in 2017 and onwards will be started.
The total 8763 would be given to the teachers appointed
in 2017 and onwards, which were advertised districts wise
under advt. No. 02/2012 for Rest of Haryana Cadre for
them for the allocations of the Districts. For example 400
vacancies are advertised for Ambala, only 400 teachers
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -6- 2024:PHHC:045292
will be allocated the Ambala District as per their merits,
whether 600 teachers have given their options for district
Ambala and vacancies are available. Further 445
vacancies advertised for Karnal and at present 200 regular
teachers are working there and 145 clear cut vacancies are
available but vacancies need 445, then 100 vacancies
occupied by Guest/Ad-hoc in Karnal will be taken by
treating them as vacant posts.
12. That it is worthwhile to mention here that in case of
the teachers appointed before year 2011, there will be
transfer under cadre Change Policy 2018, which will be as
per the scores basis mentioned in the Cadre Change
Policy 2018 and in the case of teachers appointed in 2017
and onwards there will be allocations of the districts as
per their merits.
13. That then the process to allocate the districts to the
teachers appointed in 2017 and onwards will be started
only giving vacancies district wise as advertised in 2012
against Advt. No.02/2012 for Rest of Haryana cadre all
the teachers appointed on 2017 and onwards will be asked
to participate in the districts allocation process online to
avoid complications and to end the dispute of junior and
senior as the teachers appointed on 2017 and onwards had
filed hundreds petitions for allocation the districts as per
merits. In those writ petitions in compliance of the
directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court, hundreds
speaking orders were passed by mentioning that the
allocation would be done as per merit. It is also decided
that options of 6 districts may be sought for allocation the
districts.
Keeping in view the above explained facts in the present
short reply, it is requested that the present Writ Petitions
may kindly be disposed of to avoid the complications and
further litigations as the claim of the petitioners appointed
before the 2011 and teachers appointed in 2017 and
onwards has been accepted."
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -7- 2024:PHHC:045292
3.1. In these circumstances, after the litigation was over, the
respondents issued general notice, dated 13.9.2023, inter alia, giving
schedule for permanent district allotment for 2017 Batch PRTs. The
challenge laid by some of the PRTs to compulsory participation for the
Batch in this process/drive, was declined by this Court in CWP No.22244
of 2023 titled Ravinder Rathee and others v. State of Haryana and
another, vide order dated 16.10.2023, holding as under:
8. In view of this factual background, it is apparent that the
petitioners, being 2017 Batch PRTs, were never allotted a district
permanently, as they were appointed pursuant to interim orders by
Court during pendency of the litigation impugning their selection
process; besides, the appointments were made before final seniority
positions of the batch could be determined. This is the reason
condition no.14 was included in the letters of appointment
stipulating that they were temporarily being allotted the district
which was subject to change. After the litigation questioning the
selection process came to an end in terms of order, dated 13.09.2022,
passed in Vikas Kumar case (supra), which upheld the selection and
determined their seniority position finally, the respondents have
undertaken this drive vide the impugned General Notice for
permanent district allotment to 2017 Batch PRTs keeping in view
their seniority positions and the options given. This could have been
done only after the petitioners selection was upheld which
necessitated their participation in it too. Therefore, there is nothing
illegal or irregular either about condition no. 14 of appointment or
the permanent district allotment drive, as it is being undertaken in
the light of aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court as well as
the affidavit submitted by the respondents before this Court in
Sandeep Kumar case (supra).
3.2. Accordingly, the petitioners participated in the allotment drive,
and were allocated districts, along with other 2017 Batch PRTs. In
continuation thereof, by considering the options for posting and the merit
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -8- 2024:PHHC:045292
positions, they were allotted schools temporarily in the new districts, vide
impugned office order dated 16.3.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that no
relaxation has been given to female teachers of 2017 Batch PRTs in the
process of allotment of stations/schools, which is inhumane and
discriminatory against them. The females among PRTs are entitled to
special treatment for allotment of schools, as is being given to other
female teachers under the Teachers Transfer Policy-2023 dated 9.8.2023.
In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon provisions of
Article 15 (3) of the Constitution as well as law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijayakumar and
another, 1995 (4) SCC 520. Further, parity has been drawn with female
Block Resource Persons (BRPs) of Haryana School Siksha Pariyojna
Parishad (in short 'the Parishad') who have been given additional marks
for allotment of Blocks-Clusters, as apparent from office order dated
13.9.2019. Still further, it is contended by the learned counsel that the
impugned office order, dated 16.3.2024, has been passed without
following proper procedure and is, accordingly, liable to be set-aside. In
case the petitioners are allotted schools in the districts pursuant to this
order, they will lose their entire seniority of about seven years in the
districts they were earlier posted.
5. Heard.
6. As per facts apparent on record, the petitioners are 2017 Batch
PRTs, which is a district cadre post. They were earlier allotted the districts
temporarily, pending the litigation impugning their selection. After the
selection was upheld by the Supreme Court in Vikas Kumar case (supra)
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -9- 2024:PHHC:045292
and in terms of the directions issued therein, the respondents initiated the
process for permanent district allotment for the Batch vide general notice
dated 13.9.2023. Challenge to compulsory participation for 2017 Batch
PRTs in this district allocation process was rejected by this Court in
Ravinder Rathee case (supra), vide order dated 16.10.2023. Accordingly,
the petitioners, like other PRTs, participated in the process and were
allotted permanent districts; in continuation of the process they, along
with other PRTs, have now been allotted schools in their new districts,
vide impugned office order dated 16.3.2024. The allotment has been made
based upon the options submitted by PRTs and their merit position
determined in terms of the order passed in Vikas Kumar case (supra).
Evidently, the impugned order has been issued as a part of the process of
allotment of permanent districts to the Batch, and the exercise will be
completed after the allotment of schools within the districts. It cannot be
interfered with nor any exception be taken to it on the basis of Teachers
Transfer Policy-2023, which has been framed to carry out general transfer
drive of teachers posted at a particular station/school for certain duration,
as per schedule to be notified by the concerned Administrative Secretary
from time to time. The participation in the transfer drive is based on the
conditions notified and the available vacancies on the qualifying date;
whereas, the instant process is a compulsory district and school allotment
exercise for the 2017 Batch PRTs by adhering to the merit positions and
considering the options submitted. Accordingly, the benefit/weightage/
relaxation available under the transfer policy has no bearing on the
allotment of schools to petitioners/PRTs in the newly allocated districts.
The two are on distinct levels; allotment of schools to petitioners is to
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -10- 2024:PHHC:045292
assign them posting first time after allotment of district; and transfer from
one station/school to another within the district is a subsequent exercise
open to the petitioners along with its concomitant benefits and relaxations.
Once the process is over, the petitioners, like other PRTs of the Batch,
will be able to participate in the annual transfer drive under the transfer
policy as and when notified. But the instant allotment of schools within
the allocated districts, cannot be called in question on the basis of transfer
policy which is alien to the exercise, its nature and purpose.
7. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
judgment in P.B. Vijayakumar (supra) or provision of Article 15 (3), is
misconceived. The article is an enabling clause for the State to make
special provision for women and children to improve their participation in
all activities including employment. The judgment holds, this special
provision entitles the State to take affirmative action or provide
reservation for betterment of women. Accordingly, the judgment or the
provisions of Article 15 (3) are not relevant to the issue of district and
school allotment to female PRTs pursuant to their appointment in service.
Further, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners drawing
parity with the BRPs of the Parishad is also not sustainable, since it is a
registered society, financed by the State as well as Central Government,
and its employees are appointed on contract basis as per Haryana School
Siksha Pariyojna Parishad Employees Service Bye-laws, 2013. Allotting
blocks to BRPs by the Parishad in terms of the Bye-laws, cannot have
any bearing on the allotment of schools after permanent district allocation
as per the merit determined and the options given. Lastly, the argument
regarding loss of seniority etc. in the districts which were temporarily
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045292
CWP No.6334 of 2024 (O & M) -11- 2024:PHHC:045292
allotted to the petitioners during the pending litigation, has already been
negatived by this Court in Ravinder Rathee case (supra).
8. In view of the discussion, there is no merit in the petitions, and
the same, accordingly, stand dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case files.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
3.4.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
