IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

294 (4 cases) CWP-25754-2023 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 Gaurav Wadhwa and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents With Sr. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

No.

2. CWP-1150-2024 Sucha Singh and State of Haryana and others others

3. CWP-1689-2024 Ishwar Singh and State of Haryana and others others

4. CWP-2499-2024 Rahul Barak and State of Haryana and others others Present: - Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Punia, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for respondent-Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (in CWP-25754-2023 & CWP-2499-2024)

Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for respondent-Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (in CWP-1150-2024 & CWP-1689-2024)

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-25754-2023.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of Online Transfer Policy dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-4).

3. The petitioners are working as Sub-Divisional Engineers (Civil) (for short ‘SDE’) with the respondent-Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. They have joined respondent on different dates and are posted at different places. In exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of State of Haryana made Online Transfer Policy dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) for the Government Employees. The said policy was a model policy. As per Clause 2 of the policy, it would be applicable to all the employees of a cadre working on regular basis where cadre strength of a post is 500 sanctioned posts or above. By subsequent amendments, it was made applicable to posts having cadre strength of 80 or more. The cadre strength of SDE in the respondent- department is less than 80. The respondent taking cue from State model transfer policy framed its Online Transfer Policy dated 15.06.2023. The said policy was approved by different officers at different levels. It was also put up before the Chief Minister who approved the same. The petitioners are feeling aggrieved from few clauses of the Online Transfer Policy dated 15.06.2023 on the ground that these clauses are arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners submits that as per impugned policy, the respondent has laid down criteria for calculation of score. On the basis of score, an employee is posted at a particular place. 60 marks are earmarked for age; higher the age, higher the marks; resultantly, the younger employees are not likely to get posting of their choice. There are 5 marks for couple case. The marks are confined to spouses working in any Department, Board or Corporation under any State Government or Government of India. There are many employees whose spouses are working with non-government organizations, thus, they are not entitled to marks under the said criteria. The respondent has prescribed maximum 3 years stay at a particular place. No employee can stay more than six years in one Market Committee and more than eight years in one Division/Circle Office. Every Division comprises of 3-4 Sub-Divisions and every Circle comprises of 3 Divisions. The State has been divided into 7 Circles. On account of this clause, no employee would be retained beyond 8 years in a particular Circle. An employee who is having 30 years service will be posted in 4 Circles, meaning thereby, he would be posted in substantial part of the State during his tenure. The impugned policy is contrary to model policy framed by the State Government. There are negative marks for negative performance. Once an