CWP-24604-2019 and other connected cases

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(245)

CWP-24604-2019

Date of Decision : August 03, 2022

Naresh Kumar and others

.. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

.. Respondents

(245-2)

CWP-15210-2021

Shashi Bala and others

.. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

.. Respondents

(245-3)

CWP-15394-2021

Harsh Dev and others

.. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

.. Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Anshul Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners,

in CWP No.24604 of 2019 and CWP No.15210 of 2021.

HARSHA RANI

2022.08.31 18:26

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-24604-2019 and other connected cases

2

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with

Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners

in CWP No.15394 of 2021.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Additional Advocate General,

Haryana.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which

have been given in the heading of the order, are being decided as all the writ

petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

The prayer of the petitioners in the present petitions is that they

are working as Guest/Contractual/Adhoc Teachers within the State of

Haryana and they are being discriminated viz a viz regular employee while

effecting the general transfer in accordance with the transfer policy, which

has been framed by the respondents.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners argues that as per the

letter dated 28.06.2021, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-

15 with the petition i.e. CWP No.15394 of 2021, the post being held by the

Guest/Contractual/Adhoc Teachers is to be treated as vacant and the said

clause of the transfer policy is causing prejudice to the petitioners. Learned

Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that another grievance of

the petitioners is that Guest Teachers are only to be accommodated against

the posts, which remain vacant after transferring the regular employees

hence, clause 8 (ii) as well as 9 (xviii) of the transfer policy is liable to be

set aside.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that as per

the transfer policy which has been issued by the respondent-State, the post

on which Guest Lecturers are working, is to be treated as a deemed vacancy

HARSHA RANI

2022.08.31 18:26

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-24604-2019 and other connected cases

3

always and they can be transferred in case, any regular incumbent is to be

posted at a place where guest faculty lecturer is working, however, the

Guest Lecturer needs to be given parity with regular Lecturer while

effecting transfer.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that once the

guest faculty lecturers are entitled to continue till they attain the age of

superannuation, they should be given option for transfer along with the

regular employees against all the deemed vacancies, which are formulated

by the State and their claim should not be restricted to the posts/vacancies

which remain vacant after transferring all the regular employees. Learned

senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim arises from the

definition of teachers, which have been given in the policy, according to

which the guest faculty lecturer is to be treated as teacher so as to be

considered for transfer. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further

submits that in case, the petitioners are not treated at parity with the regular

employees, they will suffer more prejudice for the reason that as they are not

getting any allowances in their fixed salary, the financial burden upon them

will be more.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the status of a

guest faculty lecturer as compared to a regular incumbent already stands

decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while passi