ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of 30 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 17240, 17241, 17242, 17252, 20063, 9847, 26431, 26687, 26461, 27155, 26724, 26653 and 26696 of 2016 and CWP Nos. 14313, 742, 887, 1962, 5056, 4760, 5084, 4863, 5029, 7153, 6905, 13505, 11548, 5781, 4720, 24889 and 25271 of 2017 since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The petitioners, who are working as JBT Teachers, seek the relief of transfer to their districts of preference which has been denied on account of the fact that in principle, guest faculty teachers (in short 'GFT') are working against those regular posts. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered as the said posts cannot be considered to be vacant posts. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 17240 of 2016, Anand Kumar v. State of Haryana and others to demonstrate how the State continues to adjust the GFTs at the cost of regular employees.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2004, he was selected as JBT teacher as a general category candidate and had opted for district Bhiwani. However, he was offered district Gurugram vide appointment letter dated 08.07.2004 (Annexure P-1). District Gurugram was bifurcated in three districts and some part of the district went to district Palwal and some part of the district went to district Mewat, now district Nuh. The school in which the petitioner was posted went in district Mewat and which is now at district Nuh. In pursuance of the inter district transfer (Appointment by Transfer) policy dated 06.08.2015 (Annexure P-2), JBT teachers who were now posted in district Mewat but their appointment was made prior to creation of district Mewat in district Gurugram could seek transfer at station of his/her choice as per clause 3(xvi)(a) In accordance to the said policy, he had submitted his request for transfer/adjustment in district Bhiwani, Mahendergarh or Fatehabad vide Annexure P-3.

(3.) On account of the guest teachers working on posts of JBT teachers in the general category in the said districts, the petitioner's case did not get positive recommendation as they had not been disturbed. It is his case that on an earlier occasion, similarly situated persons in CWP No. 1591 of 2011 titled Vishav Pal and another v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.12.2016 had come to this Court seeking similar relief. Resultantly, order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure P-5) was passed wherein the factum of the petitioners being direct recruit selectees by Haryana Staff Selection Commission and being appointed on the posts of primary teachers whose seniority is to be district wise was taken into consideration. The fact that they had been given Mewat and other districts had been noticed and that in CWP No. 15929 of 2012, Sivani Gupta v. State of Haryana and others, the Division Bench on 21.12.2012 had called upon the State to discontinue the practice of engaging the GFTs. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 5956-57 of 2012, Naresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others arising out of Division Bench judgment in CWP No. 6090 of 2010, Tilak Raj v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.03.2011 wherein, no fresh appointment of guest teachers had to be made from 01.04.2012. Resultantly, directions were issued to the State for considering the feasibility of transferring and posting GFTs in a particular district or in nearby districts to accommodate the petitioners since GFTs could not be allowed to continue for all times. The fact that direct recruits being treated in a step motherly manner was accordingly noticed. The relevant part of order dated 30.09.2013 in Vishav Pal's case reads as under:-