HC quashes transfer of veterinary assistants, slaps Rs 2 lakh cost on Haryana Govt

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Veterinary Livestock Development Assistants (VLDAs) appointed through direct recruitment could not be subjected to the online transfer drive in violation of their minimum prescribed tenure. Holding the government action to be illegal, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj set aside the impugned transfers and imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the state.

“Given the court’s earlier expressed displeasure at the cavalier manner in which the respondent-state has filed affidavits, ignoring the applicable statutes and its own policy decisions, thereby precipitating litigation detrimental to the cause of law, this court deems it appropriate to impose Rs 2 lakh costs on the respondent-state. This cost is imposed as a stern warning to ensure that due application of mind and proper caution is exercised before any future responses or affidavits are filed before this court," Justice Bhardwaj asserted. The petitioners had challenged the March 28 list of VLDAs proposed to be transferred in the 2024-25 Online Transfer Drive. Among other things, they had contended that their inclusion violated the transfer policy dated October 15, 2020. The primary contention was that they had not completed their minimum tenure and, therefore, their posts could not be declared vacant. The state’s stand in the matter was that the posts held by the petitioners would be deemed vacant under Clause 3(j)(iii) of the transfer policy as they were posted temporarily due to the non-availability of an online transfer drive.

In response, the petitioners’ counsel submitted that the clause was required to be read in conjunction with Clause 9, which specifically governed appointments made through direct recruitment, repatriation, or promotion. Since the petitioners were not appointed through transfer as envisaged under Clause 3(j)(iii), Clause 9 directly applied to their category. Justice Bhardwaj ruled that their appointment and postings were proposed to be governed by Clause 9 of the transfer policy as they had been appointed through direct recruitment, repatriation, or promotion. Rejecting the State’s argument that such posts were “deemed vacant”, the court clarified: “Clause 3(j) does not extend its application to individuals initially posted by way of direct recruitment, repatriation, or promotion.”

Justice Bhardwaj further clarified that a proposed amendment dated February 8, 2024, introducing compulsory participation of directly recruited employees in the next transfer drive, was a substantive amendment and could not be given retrospective effect. “If the amendment creates new right or liability, it is to be held as substantive…. The changes are substantive and extinguish or create rights…. The amendment being substantive by its nature, can only be applied prospectively and cannot be given retrospective effect to affect those who were already appointed prior to its enactment,” Justice Bhardwaj ruled.

The court added the respondent-state filed an affidavit hastily, without properly examining the relevant statutory provisions, their applicability, or the serious consequences it could lead to reflecting a mechanical approach and a poor grasp of legal implications. “Had such a brazen affidavit not been filed by the respondent-state, the instant batch of writ petitions may never have arisen…. It is the episodic ad hoc actions of the state which frequently gives rise to unnecessary litigation, the present case being a clear example thereof,” Justice Bhardwaj ruled. The court concluded by directing the respondents to exclude the petitioners, along with the posts occupied by them, from the ambit of the online transfer drive.

Haryana Tribune