Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 March, 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1927 of 2021
Date of Decision: 12.03.2021
Raman Sharma
…..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others
…..Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Aakriittee Raj, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Senior Addl. A.G. Haryana
for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amandeep Singh Nirman, Advocate
for the caveator-respondent No.3
ALKA SARIN, J.
Heard through video conferencing.
The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is directed inter alia against the impugned order dated
15.01.2021 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner, working as Chief
Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, has been transferred to
Municipal Corporation, Hisar and respondent No.3 has been transferred as
Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram.
The brief facts, relevant to the present lis, are that in 1983 the
petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Faridabad Complex
Administration, Faridabad and was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Sub-
1 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:53 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -2-
Divisional Officer) in 1987. In 2010, he was promoted as Executive
Engineer. Vide order dated 27.09.2017 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer and was transferred from
the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to the Municipal Corporation,
Yamuna Nagar. In 2018, the petitioner was promoted as Chief Engineer.
Vide order dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was transferred
as Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Karnal. Vide order dated
07/08.08.2019 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was transferred from
Municipal Corporation, Karnal to Municipal Corporation, Gurugram with
additional charge of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad on a newly created
post of Chief Engineer. By the same order (Annexure P-3), respondent No.3
was promoted as Chief Engineer and posted in the Municipal Corporation,
Karnal in place of the petitioner. Vide order dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure
P-4), the petitioner has been transferred from Chief Engineer, Municipal
Corporation, Gurugram to Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Hisar, on
administrative grounds. By the same order (Annexure P-4), respondent No.3
has been transferred from Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Sonipat to
Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has
contended that the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is illegal and arbitrary in
as much as the petitioner has already been transferred three times in the last
four years and the present transfer is just 1 year 5 months after the last
transfer. He further submitted that the petitioner is due to retire in 1 year 9
months and therefore, no practical purpose will be served by posting him to
Hisar for the remaining period of his service. Counsel for the petitioner
2 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:55 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -3-
further submitted that the impugned transfer would cause great hardship and
suffering to the petitioner whose wife is suffering from certain health issues
and needs constant support and care. He pressed into service medical
prescriptions (Annexures P-5 and P-6) to support his stand. Learned Senior
counsel contended that the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is a colourable
exercise of power since the transfer of respondent No.3 as Chief Engineer,
Municipal Corporation, Sonipat with Municipal Corporation, Faridabad in
addition has already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2020
(Annexure P-7) passed in CWP No.20361 of 2020 and thus the impugned
transfer has been ordered only to accommodate respondent No.3. It has been
contended that one Birender Kumar Kardam was Chief Engineer with
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. Vide order dated 22.11.2020 the said
Birender Kumar Kardam was relieved of this charge and respondent No.3
was given this posting in addition to the post of Chief Engineer, Municipal
Corporation, Sonipat which he already held. Birender Kumar Kardam
challenged the order dated 22.11.2020 in this Court vide CWP No.20361 of
2020 in which this order stands stayed (Annexure P-7). According to the
learned Senior counsel, respondent No.3 is the blue-eyed boy of the State
Government and since his posting as Chief Engineer, Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad was stayed by this Court, he (respondent No.3) was
favoured and transferred to Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon and in this
process the petitioner has been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Hisar.
Lastly, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has an
unblemished service record and therefore the impugned transfer was for
extraneous and mala fide reasons. The learned Senior counsel appearing for
3 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:55 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -4-
the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in ‘N.S. Bhullar & Anr. vs. The
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.’ [1991(1) SLR 378], ‘Dr. (Mrs.)
Pushpa Mehta vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.’
[2000(5) SLR 598 Raj.], ‘Birender Singh Hooda vs. State of Haryana &
Ors.’ [2020 SCC Online P&H 220], ‘Anil Garg vs. State of Punjab &
Ors.’ [2020(4) SCT 559], ‘Rechlama T.S. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’
[2004 WLC 594 Raj.], ‘Dr. Dev Parkash Chugh vs. State of Punjab &
Ors.’ [2005(4) SCT 726], ‘Birender Kumar Kardam vs. State of
Haryana & Ors.’ [2017(1) SCT 384] and the interim orders dated
12.11.2020 and 19.11.2020 passed ‘Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Ors.’ [CM-11704-CWP-2020 in CWP-17718-2020].
Notice of motion was issued. Short reply dated 05.02.2021 was
filed on behalf of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 also filed a reply dated
11.02.2021. A short undated reply (attested on 03.03.2021) has been filed by
respondent No.2. The petitioner has filed separate replications to the replies
filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent No.1 has also filed a rejoinder
to the replication filed by the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 in it’s short reply has submitted that transfer
is an incidence in service and an employee can be transferred anywhere
where his services are required in public interest and no employee can claim
a place of posting of his own choice as a matter of right. It is further stated
that it is for the employer to see where the services are required and that the
transfer of the petitioner is on administrative grounds in public interest and
also longer stay than other Chief Engineers in all Municipal Corporations. It
is contended that an urgency has taken place in Faridabad due to extension
4 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:55 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -5-
of municipal limits and increase in work and there is a necessity to allow the
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to have another post of Chief Engineer
and that earlier too there were two Chief Engineers in Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad and due to urgency one post was transferred from
Faridabad to Panipat. As such it had been decided that one post of Chief
Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad be re-designated as Chief
Engineer (Horticulture) and the post of Chief Engineer in Municipal
Corporation, Sonipat be also transferred to Municipal Corporation,
Faridabad and the second post at Municipal Corporation, Faridabad be
designated as Chief Engineer (Works). Respondent No.1 in it’s reply has
further submitted that the petitioner belongs to the State Level Cadre of
Service and is governed by the Haryana Municipal Corporation Employees
(Recruitment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1998 and as per Rule 12, “A
member of the service shall be liable to serve at any place, in any Municipal
Corporation in the State of Haryana on being ordered so to do by the
appointing authority or the State Government”. It is also stated in the short
reply that the petitioner has been relieved from Municipal Corporation,
Gurugram on 15.01.2021 vide office order of even date and respondent No.3
has joined Municipal Corporation, Gurugram on 15.01.2021 after relieving
from Municipal Corporation, Sonipat. Another Chief Engineer (Ramji Lal),
who was also covered by the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure
P-4) has joined Municipal Corporation, Faridabad on 18.01.2021. As per the
short reply dated 05.02.2021, the petitioner had not joined Municipal
Corporation, Hisar till 04.02.2021. Regarding the illness of the petitioner’s
wife it is stated in the short reply that the prescriptions attached with the writ
5 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:55 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -6-
petition are from Ludhiana and Old Faridabad and that the petitioner had not
brought his wife’s illness to the notice of the Department prior to filing of
the writ petition. The State counsel has also contended that there is no
favouritism towards respondent No.3 and that the writ petition filed by
Birender Kumar Kardam challenging the order dated 22.11.2020 is being
contested. Learned State counsel has relied upon the decisions in
‘Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. G. Venkata Ratnam’ [(2008) 9 SCC
345] and ‘Parminder Singh vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr.’
[2016(3) SCT 823].
In his replication to the short reply filed by respondent No.1 the
petitioner has denied that he has had a tenure longer than any other Chief
Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Gurugram. The petitioner has contended
that there was favouritism displayed by respondent No.1 towards respondent
No.3 to benefit and accommodate him which smacked of mala fide and a
colourable exercise of power. The petitioner has mentioned the service and
posting of respondent No.3 and the pendency of CWP No.20361 of 2020 to
further contend that the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4) was mala
fide. The fact that respondent No.3 joined the Municipal Corporation,
Gurugram the same day when the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-3)
was passed was also pointed out to contend that respondent No.3 was all
along aware of the proceedings and the transfers had been ordered only to
accommodate him. In the replication a new point regarding the experience of
respondent No.3 to be transferred/deputed as Chief Engineer has also been
raised.
6 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:55 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -7-
Respondent No.1 in it’s rejoinder to the replication filed by the
petitioner has denied the allegations of mala fide and also stated that
respondent No.3 has challenged the petitioner’s promotion order in CWP
No.21285 of 2018 which was still pending.
Respondent No.3 in his reply has stated that he has already been
relieved from Municipal Corporation, Sonipat on 15.01.2021 and has since
taken charge at Municipal Corporation, Gurugram. Respondent No.3 has
also relied upon Rule 12 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Employees
(Recruitment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1998. It has also been
contended by respondent No.3 that the petitioner is not even eligible to be
appointed as Chief Engineer since he did not possess the requisite
qualifications and that his eligibility to be appointed as a Chief Engineer was
under challenge in CWP No.22459 of 2018 which was still pending.
Reliance has also been placed upon the decision by the Supreme Court in
‘Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani’
[(1989) 2 SCC 602], ‘Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. G. Venkata
Ratnam’ [(2008) 9 SCC 345], ‘State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Gobardhan Lal’
[(2004) 11 SCC 402] and ‘Parveen Kumar vs. State of Punjab & Ors.’
[2008(4) SCT 596] to contend that transfer of a Government servant from
one place to the other is an incident of service and that no Government
servant or employee has a legal right for being posted at any particular place.
Other averments made in the writ petition have been denied.
In his replication to the reply filed by respondent No.3 the
petitioner has placed reliance upon Policy and Guidelines for Posting and
Transfers dated 07.04.1989 (Annexure P-11) issued by the Chief Secretary,
7 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:55 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -8-
Government of Haryana. According to the petitioner, as per the said
guidelines the minimum period for continuously serving on a post should
normally be 3 years and that an employee should not be transferred from a
post earlier than the stipulated 3 year period unless essential on exceptional
grounds of public interest. However, the petitioner had completed only 1
year 5 months at his posting in Municipal Corporation, Gurugram without
completing his 3 year period without recording any exceptional grounds in
the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4). Averments similar to those
made by the petitioner in his replication to the short reply of respondent
No.1 have also been made in his replication to the reply filed by respondent
No.3.
Respondent No.2 in its short reply has stated that the petitioner
has been relieved from Municipal Corporation, Gurugram on 15.01.2021
and respondent No.3 had joined the post on 15.01.2021. It has also been
stated that as per the service rules the petitioner was required to maintain his
Headquarter at Gurugram whereas, according to his own averments, he was
residing in Faridabad. It has been stated that there was no record regarding
the illness of the petitioner’s wife available in the office of respondent No.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The law is well
settled that it is within the domain of an employer to transfer an employee
and no employee can claim continuance at a particular place of posting. The
exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to interfere with the power of an
employer to transfer an employee is very limited and can be exercised in
case the transfer has been ordered without there being any jurisdiction with
the authority, which has passed the transfer order, or the transfer order
8 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 -9-
suffers from mala fide, which has to be proved on the basis of specific
averments made in the petition.
The present case does not disclose any justifiable reason for this
Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2021
(Annexure P-4). There is no challenge in the writ petition to the power of
respondent No.1 to order the transfer of the petitioner. There is also no
averment that there has been any violation of any statutory rules. Though in
the replication to the reply filed by respondent No.3 the petitioner has placed
reliance upon Policy and Guidelines for Posting and Transfers dated
07.04.1989 (Annexure P-11), there is no reference to the same in the writ
petition. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Parveen Kumar vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.’ [2008(4) SCT 596] inter alia held that :
“The guidelines laid down by the State for the transfer of its
employees from one place to another are for the guidance of
officers and are not enforceable for the purposes of assailing
their transfer. These do not vest any immunity in an employee
from transfer in Government service. Besides, transfer of an
employee from one station to another is a normal feature and
incidence of service which does not, in any manner, alter the
conditions of his service. No Government servant can claim
to remain at a particular post or a station of his choice”.
Transfer is an exigency of service. The principle of law laid
down in a catena of decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the
service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with
ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under
9 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 10 –
Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the
service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the
orders, were not competent to pass the orders. These parameters, for this
Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4), are not
attracted in the present case and in fact none of these grounds are attracted in
the present case. The petitioner is governed by the Haryana Municipal
Corporation Employees (Recruitment and Conditions) Service Rules, 1998
and Rule 12 thereof makes it patent that he is liable to serve at any place, in
any Municipal Corporation in the State of Haryana, on being ordered so to
do by the appointing authority or the State Government. This is not the first
time that the petitioner is being transferred. As far the contention by the
petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has already been transferred three
times in the last four years and that the present transfer is just 1 year 5
months after the last transfer, suffice is it to say that the petitioner has served
at other places for shorter periods without protest and demur. Another
argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned transfer would cause great hardship and suffering to the petitioner
whose wife is suffering from certain health issues and needs constant
support and care. The petitioner in support of this contention has placed
reliance upon medical prescriptions (Annexures P-5 and P-6). However, the
transfer of the petitioner cannot be set aside on this count by the Court. It is
for the employer to consider any personal inconvenience that a transfer may
cause to an employee and/or his family and the Court cannot be guided by
emotions.
10 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 11 –
In the matter of ‘Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. vs.
Atmaram Sungomal Poshani’ [(1989) 2 SCC 602] the Supreme Court
inter-alia held that :
“Transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular
cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an
incident of service. No government servant or employee of
Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any
particular place. Transfer from one place to other is
generally a condition of service and the employee has no
choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is
necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public
administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he
must comply with the order but if there be any genuine
difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make
representation to the competent authority for stay,
modification or cancellation of the transfer order”.
In the matter of “Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.”
[(2009) 15 SCC 178] the Supreme Court inter alia held that :
“A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted
at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be
posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be
transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to
the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident
inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an
essential condition of service in the absence of any specific
11 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 12 –
indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the
Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in
a particular place or position, he should continue in such
place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v.
Gobardhan Lal, 2004(2) SCT 368 : (2004) 11 SCC 402]”.
In ‘Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.’
[1991 Supp (2) SCC 659] the Apex Court held that :
“In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a
transfer order which is made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in
violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of
mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post
has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the
other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the
other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do
not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is
passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the
courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead
affected party should approach the higher authorities in the
department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-
day transfer orders issued by the government and its
subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the
administration which would not be conducive to public
interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in
interfering with the transfer orders”.
12 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 13 –
In ‘Parminder Singh vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. &
Anr.’ [2016(3) SCT 823] a Division Bench of this Court inter alia held that:
“It is a well settled proposition of law that transfer is an
incidence of service. The Courts shall not interfere with the
transfer of an employee which will affect adversely the
effective administration by the employer. The employer is
entitled to effect transfers in case of administrative exigencies
and also in best public interest. Of course, if the transfer
order was effected in violation of any mandatory statutory
Rule or on the foundation of proved mala fide on the part of
the employer, the question of challenging the transfer by an
employee may arise. In case a transfer was effected in terms
of the policies and executive instructions or orders, the Court
shall not ordinarily interfere with the order of transfer. Of
course, the employee may challenge the transfer on the
ground that the service Rule prohibits such a transfer or that
an incompetent Authority has effected transfer. As the
transfer is a necessary concomitant of every service in case
of administrative exigencies, the High Court should restrain
itself from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction”.
It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 who
passed the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4) had no power to do so. It
is also not his case, as set-out in the writ petition, that his transfer is against
the service rules which govern him. Though at the stage of filing the
replication the petitioner put his reliance on the Policy and Guidelines for
13 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 14 –
Posting and Transfers dated 07.04.1989 (Annexure P-11), there is no
reference to the same in the writ petition. Even otherwise a Division Bench
of this Court in Parveen Kumar’s case (supra) has held that such guidelines
are only for the guidance of officers and are not enforceable for the purposes
of assailing the transfer and do not vest any immunity in an employee from
transfer in Government service.
There are no specific allegations of malafide against any
particular officer in the writ petition. There are no mala fides alleged against
any officer who may have ordered the transfer of the petitioner. No officer
against whom mala fide is alleged, or even assumed, has been impleaded by
name. The pleadings by the petitioner only mention that the impugned
transfer order (Annexure P-4) has been passed to favour respondent No.3
which is not the same as alleging mala fide. Further, there is nothing in the
petition which spells out any reason for respondent No.3 to harbour any
mala fide against the petitioner. Mere general statements will not be
sufficient for the purposes of indication of malafides. There must be cogent
evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact
there was existing a bias which resulted in the passing of the impugned
transfer order. In the present case there is none.
Further, merely because this Court has in CWP No.20361 of
2020 filed by Birender Kumar Kardam stayed the order dated 22.11.2020
whereby respondent No.3 was given additional charge as Chief Engineer,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and after about two months he
(respondent No.3) was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon does
not by itself show that the State Government has favoured respondent No.3.
14 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 15 –
The order dated 22.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) shows that respondent No.3
continued to retain the post of Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation,
Sonipat and was given additional charge of Chief Engineer, Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad. However, now vide the impugned transfer order
(Annexure P-4) respondent No.3 has been transferred as Chief Engineer to
Municipal Corporation, Gurugram. He no longer holds the charge of Chief
Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Sonipat. The sweep of the two orders i.e.
the order dated 22.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) and the impugned transfer order
(Annexure P-4) is different.
In “Prabodh Sagar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board &
Ors.” [(2000) 5 SCC 630] it was inter alia held that :
“Incidentally, be it noted that the expression ‘mala fide’ is not
a meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation.
Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the
records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot
possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala
fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own
facts and circumstances….There must be factual support
pertaining to the allegations of mala fides, unfortunately
there is none. Mere user of the word mala fide by the
petitioner would not by itself make the petition
entertainable”.
The judgements cited by the Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case especially in view of the law settled by the
15 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 16 –
Supreme Court. Some decisions by the Apex Court wherein the benchmarks
have been laid for the High Courts to interfere in transfer matters have been
referred to above.
In ‘N.S. Bhullar & Anr. vs. The Punjab State Electricity
Board & Ors.’ [1991(1) SLR 378], the Division Bench found that the
transfers had been made on the basis of some complaints and adverse
remarks and that there did not seem to be any public interest in transferring
the petitioners and the power to transfer seemed to have been used for
collateral purposes to avoid disciplinary proceedings. The case of ‘Dr.
(Mrs.) Pushpa Mehta vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal &
Ors.’ [2000(5) SLR 598 Raj.] arose from the decision given by the
Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal where, in the opinion of the
Tribunal, the order of transfer was mala fide for the reasons that it has been
passed in order to accommodate the appellant in place of the second
respondent. Further, the second respondent therein was on the verge of
retirement. However, in the present case no mala fides have been established
by the petitioner nor any statutory provisions have been shown to be
violated. The petitioner still has his service till 31.10.2022. The case of
‘Birender Singh Hooda vs. State of Haryana & Ors.’ [2020 SCC Online
P&H 220] was decided on the first date of hearing without issuing any
notice to the State and only the private-respondent, who was a caveator,
appeared before the Court. The law settled on the point by the Supreme
Court was not brought to the notice of the Court. In ‘Anil Garg vs. State of
Punjab & Ors.’ [2020(4) SCT 559] the respondent no.3 had remained
posted at Patiala for more than two decades and by the transfer order he was
16 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 17 –
brought back to Patiala in place of the petitioner without any administrative
exigency. In the present case respondent No.1 has in it’s short reply spelt out
the exigency for passing of the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-4).
‘Rechlama T.S. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ [2004 WLC 594 Raj.] was
decided by relying upon the decision in Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Mehta’s case
(supra) which has already been distinguished above. In ‘Dr. Dev Parkash
Chugh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.’ [2005(4) SCT 726] the Court was
interpreting the transfer policy of the State of Punjab notified on
20.04.2005. No such transfer policy of the Government of Haryana has been
referred to in the writ petition and it is only at the stage of filing the
replication to the reply filed by respondent No.3 that the petitioner put his
reliance on the Policy and Guidelines for Posting and Transfers dated
07.04.1989 (Annexure P-11). This policy has not even been relied upon by
the petitioner in his replication filed to the short reply filed by respondent
No.1. The present case is also not a case where an employee has been
singled out for adverse treatment. Therefore, the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court relied upon by the Senior counsel for the petitioner is
distinguishable on facts. The decision in ‘Birender Kumar Kardam vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.’ [2017(1) SCT 384] operates against the
petitioner as the transfer of the petitioner therein was upheld by this Court.
The reliance upon certain interim orders passed by the Court in the matter of
‘Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.’ is also misplaced
since that case pertained to deployment/deputation of employees of one
wing in the Transport Department to another wing of the Transport
Department.
17 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
CWP No. 1927 of 2021 – 18 –
Respondent No.3 has questioned the petitioner’s qualifications
and eligibility for being promoted as Chief Engineer and a writ petition on
this issue is already pending. Needless to say, this Court is not seized of any
such dispute in the present writ petition wherein only the impugned transfer
order (Annexure P-4) is under challenge. As such, this Court refrains from
making any observations on this issue.
In view of the discussion above and the settled proposition of
law quoted, no ground is made out for this Court to exercise it’s writ
jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2021
(Annexure P-4). Finding no merit in the civil writ petition, the same is
dismissed.
Dismissed.
( ALKA SARIN )
JUDGE
12th March, 2021
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2021 21:01:56 :::
Comments