[ad_1]
Tribune News Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, January 17
Taking cognisance of the trend to stall transfers by alleging mala fide intention of the authorities and making them “sitting ducks”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the practice is required to be dealt with sternly.
Trend needs to be tackled with heavy hand
Keeping in view the fact that a large number of petitions are being filed alleging mala fide on one officer or the other, making them sitting ducks just to stall the transfer, the said trend needs to be tackled with a heavy hand. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi also imposed Rs 10,000 costs on a petitioner (Assistant Professor) while dismissing his petition challenging order dated February 12, 2020, transferring him from one government college to another. Among other things, the petitioner contended that the transfer order was passed with mala fide intention at the instance of an ex-principal of the college. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, Justice Sethi asserted: “These days it has become a fashion to challenge the transfer by alleging mala fides on one or the other so as to bring the transfer under the purview of the court. In the present case, the allegations by the petitioner are totally bald without there being any substance to support the same”. Justice Sethi added that the teachers in the Education Department were appointed to teach the students. Their welfare was of paramount as compared to minor service disputes of the teachers, especially. One of the petitioner’s contentions was that the workload existing at the other college should have been met with the appointment of the extension lecturers, rather than dislodging a regular employee.
Justice Sethi asserted the decision how to meet the workload was in the employer’s exclusive domain and the petitioner was in no position to dictate to the department as to how the colleges were to be administrated. It was for the employer to see as to whether a regular employee was required to be posted at a particular place or an extension lecturer was to be appointed. The petitioner or even the court would not have the jurisdiction to substitute the department’s opinion and that too without any valid reason, once in its wisdom an already teaching regular employee was good enough to teach the students at a particular station with enough workload.
Justice Sethi further observed that nothing had been placed on record to show that an ex-principal had any jurisdiction to transfer an employee from one place to another. Further, correlating facts had not been placed on record to show as to how he was able to manage the transfer.
“Keeping in view the fact that a large number of petitions are being filed alleging mala fide on one officer or the other, making them sitting ducks just to stall the transfer, said the trend needs to be tackled with a heavy hand so that an employee should think twice before alleging mala fide upon an officer in a routine manner,” Justice Sethi said while dismissing the plea.
[ad_2]
Source link