Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia ,contends that respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners, without considering the facts and for quashing of order dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure P-11) or taking willingness consent again for Veterinary Surgeon and VLDA, whose tenure at the present place of posting is from 3 to 5 years only, which is in violation of Instructions dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P-1). He submits that respondents be directed to carry out the transfer process afresh by unblocking the blocked posts.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the case file.

Merely because the petitioners have been asked to participate in the online transfer drive is no ground for this Court to grant any indulgence.

VANDANA 2021.12.24 04:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order

On the other hand, introducing online transfer drive is a laudable step to bring about better transparency in the administrative functioning.

Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of extreme hardship or malafide. The case in hand does not seem to be such so as to deserve any indulgence. Moreover, to transfer an official or not to, is the sole discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Doing or not doing so is not a punishment, but an integral part of service conditions. Carrying out transfers as well as policy framed there for, as long as it is transparent and applied across board on all, is the prerogative of the employer.

15.12.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

VANDANA 2021.12.24 04:22 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Sunil Verma and Others v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief