Jitendra Malik vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J (ORAL)

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the transfer order dated 05.08.2026 (Annexure P-8) whereby the petitioner who is 100% visually disabled and being a protected employee has been illegally displaced from Govt. College for Girls, Sector 14, Gurugram to Govt. College for Women, Faridabad against the provisions of Model Transfer Policy 2025 (Annexure P-7) and also against the protection granted to the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed in CWP No.23254 of 2023 titled as ‘Dr. Indu Rao Vs. State of Haryana and others’.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was serving as a Principal in Government College for Girls in Gurugram and is 100% visibly disabled person. The respondents framed policy guidelines dated 06.10.2004 (Annexure P-2) and 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) providing protection to disabled employees during transfers. The teacher transfer policy was issued on 29.06.2016. The Model Transfer Policy 2025 (Annexure P-7) defines the protected employee which include employees with benchmark disability of 70% and employees due for retirement in 18 months. Clause 5(iv)(b) provides that employees in the protected category shall ordinarily not be displaced during rationalization without their consent. The petitioner is not only a disabled person but he is due for retirement on 31.01.2028 and he has been transferred, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2026 (Annexure P-8) in violation of the Model Transfer Policy 2025.

Affidavit dated 31.08.2026 produced today in terms of order dated 27.08.2026 is taken on record.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been temporarily assigned duty at Faridabad to facilitate free and fair disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner is facing departmental action. The disability of the petitioner was taken into consideration even while deputing him at Faridabad. All facilities for a person who is having benchmark disability, are available at Faridabad. The petitioner has not disclosed this fact that it is not a case of transfer rather the petitioner was deputed to Faridabad for a period of 180 days in view of the ongoing disciplinary enquiry. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has not even disclosed the filing of a separate writ petition i.e. CWP-18823-2026, in which he has sought change of Enquiry Officer. Moreover, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2026, the affidavit on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 is produced in Court to controvert the stand of the petitioner that he is the complainant. Infact, 17 complaints were received by the competent authority. Out of these 17 complaints, 9 complaints are filed by the petitioner whereas 8 complaints have been filed by various teachers and staff members in the college against petitioner. After receiving the above complaints and counter complaints, District Education Officer, Kaithal has been appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into these complaints. Further, the preliminary enquiry was initiated and the petitioner was deputed at Faridabad temporarily for 180 days on the administrative ground.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it transpires that the competent authority has received various complaints and the list of the complaints in chronological order has been provided in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed by respondents No.1 and 2. A perusal of the same indicates that District Education Officer, Kaithal has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the preliminary enquiry was conducted. Further, on the basis of interim report in order to safeguard the integrity of the departmental proceedings and to facilitate free and fair enquiry, the petitioner was temporarily transferred for 180 days to Faridabad on administrative grounds. Moreover, the College at Faridabad in which the petitioner has been transferred has all disabled friendly facilities including ramps, lifts, braille signages, accessible washrooms, tactile flooring, barrier free access, special parking for disabled person, have been provided.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the temporary transfer order of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.