The court established that the maximum period for continuously serving on a post does not apply to college employees, and the Competent Authority can transfer an employee if administrative exigency requires, rejecting the argument that the transfer policy did not apply to college employees.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Mittal, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved because her transfer from Government College, Jind to Government College Panchkula has been cancelled.

2. The petitioner has been working on the post of Associate Professor (Political Science) in Government College, Jind since 10.07.2014. Her husband and children reside in Panchkula along with her father-in-law. The father-in-law is stated to be a cancer patient and the petitioner is statedly suffering from osteo-arthritis. Thus, she requested for her transfer to a Government College in Panchkula or a nearby place. Her request was accepted and transfer order dated 16.06.2020 was issued. Respondent No. 3 was ordered to be transferred to Government College, Jind against the post vacated by the petitioner. However, the said transfer order was cancelled vide order dated 18.06.2020. This has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. Upon being put on notice, the State of Haryana and respondent No.3 have filed their respective short written statements. The petitioner has filed a counter to the short written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3.

4. On behalf of the State of Haryana, it has been pleaded that although the post held by the petitioner is transferable in nature, no employee has a right to seek a transfer. The transfer order of the petitioner was cancelled as upon representation made by respondent No.3, it was found that his transfer to Jind was not justified. He is not the longest serving teacher in Government College Panchkula and, thus, his transfer to Jind was incorrect and unjust. The policy of transfer applicable to employees of the State of Haryana annexed as Annexure P-2, is however admitted.

5. In the short written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it has been pleaded that the transfer of the petitioner was actuated on account of political considerations and deserved to be cancelled.

6. As mentioned herein-above, a counter to the short written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3, has been filed by the petitioner. Along with the counter, a document dated 13.02.2019 has been annexed as Annexure P-6 and one dated 14.02.2019 has been annexed as Annexure P-7. Document Annexure P-6 is an earlier transfer order of respondent No.3 which was cancelled vide order Annexure P-7. On the basis of these orders, it has been submitted that respondent No. 3 is a well connected person and is able to stay on in Panchkula on account of his connections.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that order dated 18.06.2020 cancelling the order of transfer dated 16.06.2020 so far as the petitioner is concerned, is vitiated on account of malafides. Once the Competent Authority had found that the petitioner had a genuine ground to seek transfer, the order of transfer could not have been cancelled unless strong and cogent reasons were brought to the notice of the Competent Authority. The record does not indicate that any such strong or cogent reasons existed to justify passing of the impugned order dated 18.06.2020. On the contrary, the record indicates that the said order is malafide and has been passed only on account of the fact that respondent No. 3 has been able to manipulate the concerned authorities. Orders Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 established beyond doubt that respondent No. 3 is very well connected and is managing to stay on in Panchkula by utilising his connections. He has been posted at Panchkula since 02.11.2002 and this further goes to establish his approach in the concerned quarters.

8. Learned State counsel supports the impugned order dated 18.06.2020 and argues that an order transferring an employee or cancelling a transfer order is purely administrative in nature. Such an order is not open to challenge unless some procedural illegality is pointed out. No such illegality has either been pleaded or argued and, thus, the order dated 18.06.2020 does not call for any interference. Further, the policy of transfer anne