UPENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are working in the Department of Education under the Primary School Directorate, Haryana on various posts like SS Masters and teachers. They have approached this Court with a prayer to set aside Clause 3 of the rationalisation policy dated 30.9.2005 (Annexure P.1) introduced by the respondent State. It is appropriate to mention that the respondent- State has floated a rationalisation policy with the object of restoring the teacher-students ratio. In the process it became necessary to transfer some teachers/ masters/ mistresses from one school to another as per requirement as there were more teachers in comparison to the number of students according to norm or there were less teachers in comparison to the strength of the students. The petitioners are aggrieved by Clause 3 of the Policy which reads as under: Transfer in the surplus teachers to the nearest schools in the District, where vacancy is available( or the nearest school having vacancy in the adjoining district when no vacancy is available in the district). While transferring the surplus teachers by way of Rationalization it is proposed that we may not transfer the teachers who have been transferred to that school in the last few months, since 1st April, 2005. After excluding these recently transferred teachers the next teacher with shortest stay in the school should be transferred, as part of this Rationalization, when a surplus teacher is to be transferred.

(2.) Mr. Jagbir Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the principle of surplus staff should be applied by keeping in view the seniority of the person. Accordingly a junior most incumbent working in a particular school is required to be declared surplus and then transferred to a needy school. According to the learned Counsel, Clause 3 of the policy would impose an illegal embargo by protecting those who have been transferred to a school on or after 1.4.2005 irrespective of their seniority. He has maintained that the petitioners are likely to suffer because they have been ordered to be transferred in pursuance to the aforementioned Clause 3 vide order dated 20.7.2006 (Annexure P.2).

(3.) We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of rationalisation policy dated 30.9.2005 would show that the respondents have fixed the norm in paras 1 and 2 of the policy which reads as under: