The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board’s (HSAMB) Online Transfer Policy dated June 15, 2023, which prioritizes senior employees in transfer postings. Dismissing a batch of petitions challenging the policy as arbitrary and unconstitutional, the court ruled that age-based differentiation in transfer preferences is reasonable, considering the family responsibilities and health issues faced by older employees.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, emphasizes that every employee will eventually grow older and benefit from the same policy provisions. “There seems to be reason for making this classification. Employees with higher age should be given preference as they have better experience but also more family responsibilities and health concerns,” the court observed.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a challenge by Gaurav Wadhwa and others (CWP-25754-2023 and connected cases), all of whom are serving as Sub-Divisional Engineers (Civil) with the HSAMB. The petitioners contested the validity of the Online Transfer Policy, arguing that it discriminates against younger employees by allocating 60 marks for age in the scoring system that determines transfer postings. They also challenged the maximum tenure restrictions imposed by the policy, which limits an employee’s stay at a particular location to three years, at a Market Committee for six years, and at a Division or Circle for eight years.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Sajjan Singh and Vishal Punia, who contended that the policy unfairly penalizes younger employees, denies transfer benefits to those whose spouses work in the private sector, and imposes negative marking for past disciplinary actions, amounting to “double jeopardy.”
Defending the policy, Senior Advocate B.R. Mahajan, along with Advocates Nikita Goel and Samarth Sagar, argued that the transfer policy aims to ensure transparency, curb favoritism, and prevent stagnation in postings. It was contended that no employee has a fundamental right to demand a posting of their choice, and transfer decisions fall within the employer’s prerogative.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
Age-Based Transfer Marks:
The petitioners argued that younger employees receive lower marks, reducing their chances of securing preferred postings. The court dismissed this contention, holding that:
“Every employee will eventually grow older and benefit from the same policy. The classification is just and fair, considering older employees’ health and family concerns.”
Negative Marking for Past Penalties:
The policy deducts 5 marks for minor penalties and 10 marks for major penalties. The petitioners contended that this amounts to “double jeopardy” under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, ruling that negative marking in transfer scoring does not constitute punishment and is a reasonable measure to ensure accountability.
“A person who has been subjected to major penalty cannot claim that he should be given a posting of his choice. The employer has every right to post such employees at non-sensitive locations.”
Denial of Spousal Benefit for Private Sector Employees:
The policy grants 5 extra marks to employees whose spouses work in government departments, boards, or corporations, but excludes those whose spouses are in the private sector. The court upheld this provision, reasoning that:
“Private sector jobs are generally non-transferable, and extending the benefit to such employees would be impractical.”
Maximum Tenure Restrictions:
The petitioners argued that the three-year cap at one place and the eight-year limit in a Circle were arbitrary. The court found the tenure limitations reasonable and aligned with the State’s model transfer policy, ensuring employees do not remain in one location indefinitely.
Dismissing the petitions, the High Court reaffirmed that transfer policies are an administrative matter, with limited scope for judicial intervention. It emphasized that the policy applies uniformly to all employees and does not single out any group unfairly.
“The respondent [HSAMB] has framed the transfer policy to create transparency and fairness. There is no manifest arbitrariness that warrants interference.”
