Two years after Punjab came out with a transfer policy for the government schoolteachers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that carrying out transfers after calculation of marks was not discriminatory.

The ruling by the Bench of Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash came on a petition filed by Renu Bala and other petitioners against the State of Punjab and others respondents. Among other things, the counsel for petitioners had contended that 40-point weightage was given to teachers on the basis of their performance. But less points were awarded to primary teachers teaching classes I to IV, compared to those teaching class V and onwards. As such, a clause in the policy on the issue was discriminatory in nature.

HC Bench

A perusal of the objective of the impugned (transfer) policy will show that it has been devised for distribution of human resources in an optimal manner to protect academic interest of the students and maximise job satisfaction.

The Bench asserted a perusal of the objective of the impugned policy dated June 25, 2019, would show that it had been devised for distribution of human resources in an optimal manner to protect academic interest of the students and maximise job satisfaction amongst employee in a fair and transparent manner.

For achieving the objective and to obviate any undue influence, marks, along with weightage to be given to the teachers, were set out by the education department. A teacher securing highest marks was rewarded with the option to choose the school or block of his liking.

As far as grant of weightage was concerned, it was apparent that the respondent-department had a clear focus on uplifting the standard of education for the students in higher classes — Class V onwards as compared to the students studying in primary ones up to Class IV. This decision of awarding higher marks to the teachers from Class V onwards was based on reasonable classification and did not suffer from arbitrariness, irrationality or discrimination. “There is always a line that is drawn by the department at the time of implementation of any policy, which usually becomes a bone of contention. The department, maintaining the entire data viz. number of students studying, teachers available, and percentage of result secured etc., is in a better position to take a call. We, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot substitute our view on such decision,” the Bench asserted.

Referring to the argument that posts shown as vacant were actually occupied, the Bench added it was for the department to verify the ground position and take a call. Dismissing the petition, the Bench added occasion did not arise for an employee to work on an unsanctioned post at a particular place in the absence of vacant posts.