Disposed¶40

Balvinder Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2026CWP/9700/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Online Transfer Policy 2018; Clause 6(ii); Clause 6(iii)(a); Warder (Male); age criterion weightage reduced 60 to 30 points; length of service points; transfer policy amendment quashed; certiorari Article 226; Articles 14 and 16; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Nidhi Gupta; infructuous disposal; superseded policy dated 23.05.2025; Model Online Transfer Policy 2026; DG Jails; State of Haryana; Balvinder Kumar; Jagdish Chander; CWP (O&M).

What did the court decide?

None on merits. All three writ petitions were disposed of as infructuous; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of; and a photocopy of the order is to be placed on the files of the connected cases. The legality of the impugned amendments to the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 was not examined. ¶40

Balvinder Kumar and Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the amendment to Clause 6(ii) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 applicable to Warder (Male) — reducing the maximum age-criterion weightage from 60 points to 30 points and providing one point per completed year of service (maximum 30 points) under length of service — is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice (CWP No.9700 of 2023; likewise CWP No.11134 of 2025). +2 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, and since the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 under challenge no longer survives — it having been superseded by the policy dated 23.05.2025 and repealed and replaced by the Model Online Transfer Policy, 2026 — the present writ petitions, having been rendered infructuous, were disposed of as such. The merits of the challenge to the impugned amendments were not adjudicated.

¶40

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta J., oral), 20.07.2026 — CWP No.9700 of 2023 (O&M) with connected CWP Nos.12815 and 11134 of 2025 (Balvinder Kumar; Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana): Writ petitions under Article 226 sought certiorari against amendments to Clause 6(ii)/Clause 6(iii)(a) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 for Warders (Male) — reduction of the age-criterion weightage from 60 to 30 points and introduction of one point per completed year of service (maximum 30 points) — as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14/16 and natural justice. At the very outset counsel conceded, and State counsel confirmed on instructions, that the 2018 Policy had been superseded by the policy dated 23.05.2025 and repealed and replaced by the Model Online Transfer Policy, 2026 (copy taken on record). The petitions, rendered infructuous, were disposed of as such without examination of the challenged amendments; pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the connected files.

¶1

CWP-9700 of 2023 alongwith con n ected cases 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

222 (3 case s ) 1. CWP No.9700 of 2023 (O & M) Date of decision :-20.07.2026

¶4

Balvinder kumar and others

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

CWP No.12815 of 2025 (O & M)

¶10

Jagdish Chander and others

¶11

…..Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Haryana and others

¶14

…..Respondents

¶15

CWP No.11134 of 2025 (O & M)

¶16

Balvinder kumar and others

¶17

…..Petitioners

¶18

Versus

¶19

State of Haryana and another

¶20

…..Respondents

¶21

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶22

Present:Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocat e for the petitioners (in CWP N o.9700 of 2023). Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra (Sir s a), Advocate

¶23

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.21 10.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-9700 of 2023 alongwith con n ected cases 2 for the petitioners (in CWP N o.12815 of 2025).

¶25

Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocat e with Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶26

Mr. Teevar Sharma, DAG, H aryana.

¶27

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶28

Since the issue involved in all the above-captioned writ petitions is identical, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

¶29

Prayer in the present Civil W rit Petition No.9700 of 2023 filed un d er Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for seeking issuance o f a writ in the nature of certior a ri for quashing Letter/Order No. 124 1 1/32/DG Jails/2023/A6 dated 0 7.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), whereby respondent No.2 has amende d Clause 6(ii) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 applicable to th e post of Warder (Male) by reducing the maximum weightage und e r the age criterion from 60 points to 30 points and by providing o n e point for each completed year of s e rvice, subject to a maximum of 30 points, under the criterion of length of service. The impugned amendment is challenged as being arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable a n d violative of the principles of natura l justice, on the ground that it alters the criteria prescribed under the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 w ithout any rational basis and that the said policy continues to r e main unchanged in other departme n ts of the State. The petitioners consequently seek quashing

¶30

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.21 10.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CWP-9700 of 2023 alongwith con n ected cases 3 of the i m pugned amendment and all consequential actions taken pursuant t hereto.

¶32

Prayer in the second Civil Writ Petition No.12815 of 2025 file d under Article 226 of the Const i tution of India is for seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the amendm e nt dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) made to Clause 6(iii)(a) of the O n line Transfer Policy, 2018 for the post of Warder (Male), whereby the maximum weightage unde r the age criterion has been reduced f rom 60 points to 30 points. T h e petitioner alleges that the impugne d amendment is arbitrary, dis c riminatory and violative of Articles 1 4 and 16 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the M o del Online Transfer Policy dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P- 7), the O n line Transfer Policy dated 13. 0 2.2020 (Annexure P-8), and the judg m ent dated 25.02.2025 (Annexu r e P-5), wherein the award of 60 points under the age criterion was upheld. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the consequential letter dat e d 21.04.2025 (Annexure P- 10), whe r eby respondent No.2 directed r espondent No.3 to carry out transfers o f Warders (Male) on the basis of the aforesaid amendment, along wi t h all consequential actions take n pursuant thereto. A further prayer h a s been made for staying the operation of the impugned amendm e nt and the consequential letter during the pendency of the present w rit petition.

¶33

Prayer in the second Civil Writ Petition No.11134 of 2025 file d under Article 226 of the Const i tution of India is for seeking

¶34

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.21 10.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CWP-9700 of 2023 alongwith con n ected cases 4 issuance o f a writ in the nature of certior a ri for quashing Letter/Order No . 46/2 5 /2020-4JJ-II dated 09.04.202 5 (Annexure P-10), whereby responde n t No.2 has amended Clause 6 (ii) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2 0 18 applicable to the post of W a rder (Male) by reducing the maximu m weightage under the age cri t erion from 60 points to 30 points an d by providing one point for ea c h completed year of service, subject t o a maximum of 30 points, un d er the criterion of length of service. T he impugned amendment is ch a llenged on the ground that it is arbitr a ry, discriminatory, unreason a ble and violative of the principle s of natural justice, besides bei n g contrary to the object and scheme o f the Online Transfer Policy, 2 018, which was formulated after due consideration of all relevant factors governing transfers. It is further p l eaded that while the original p o licy continues to operate in other de p artments of the State, the r espondent Department has arbitraril y altered the criteria applicable to Warders (Male) without any ratio n al basis. The petitioner conseq u ently seeks quashing of the impugne d amendment along with all consequential actions taken pursuant t hereto.

¶36

At the very outset, learne d counsel appearing for the petitione r s fairly submit that the prese n t writ petitions have been rendered infructuous, as the challenge i n all these petitions is to the Online T r ansfer Policy, 2018 , which no l o nger holds the field.

¶37

Learned State counsel, on i n structions, submits that the Online T r ansfer Policy, 2018 stood superseded by the policy dated

¶38

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.21 10.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CWP-9700 of 2023 alongwith con n ected cases 5 23.05.20 2 5, which has subsequently be e n repealed and replaced by the Mod e l Online Transfer Policy, 2026. A copy of the said policy has been han d ed over in Court and is taken o n record.

¶40

In view of the fair stand tak e n by learned counsel for the parties a n d the fact that the policy under c hallenge no longer survives, the pres e nt writ petitions have been rendered infructuous and are, accordin g ly, disposed of as such.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous app l ication(s), if any, shall also stand dis p osed of.

¶42

A photocopy of this order b e placed on the files of the

¶43

connecte d cases.

¶44

July 20, 2 026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶45

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶46

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.21 10.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter/Order No.12411/32/DG Jails/2023/A6 dated 07.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), issued by respondent No.2, amending Clause 6(ii) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 for the post of Warder (Male) by reducing the maximum weightage under the age criterion from 60 points to 30 points, and providing one point for each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 30 points under the criterion of length of service.¶29
Respondent No.2 (issuing authority; office not named in the judgment; order number bears the series 'DG Jails') · 07.04.2023
Prior proceeding
Amendment dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) made to Clause 6(iii)(a) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 for the post of Warder (Male), reducing the maximum weightage under the age criterion from 60 points to 30 points; challenged in CWP No.12815 of 2025.¶32
Prior proceeding
Consequential letter dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) whereby respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to carry out transfers of Warders (Male) on the basis of the 18.04.2025 amendment; sought to be quashed in CWP No.12815 of 2025.¶32
Prior proceeding
Letter/Order No.46/25/2020-4JJ-II dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) whereby respondent No.2 amended Clause 6(ii) of the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 for Warder (Male) (age weightage reduced from 60 to 30 points; one point per completed year of service, maximum 30 points); challenged in CWP No.11134 of 2025.¶35
Prior proceeding
Judgment dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), pleaded in CWP No.12815 of 2025 as one in which the award of 60 points under the age criterion was upheld; petitioners alleged the 18.04.2025 amendment was contrary to it, and also to the Model Online Transfer Policy dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) and the Online Transfer Policy dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-8).¶32
Prior proceeding
Per learned State counsel on instructions: the Online Transfer Policy, 2018 stood superseded by a policy dated 23.05.2025 (¶37-¶39), which was subsequently repealed and replaced by the Model Online Transfer Policy, 2026; a copy of the 2026 policy was handed over in Court and taken on record.¶39

Balvinder Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvinder Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhateri Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Saksham Rathore Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mahabir Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bhoopinder and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parveen Kumar Son of Shri Main Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.