C.W.P No.6327 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 06, 2009 1. C.W.P No.6327 of 2009 Joginder Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others 2. C.W.P No.6331 of 2009 Jasbir Singh vs State of Haryana and others 3. C.W.P No.6351 of 2009 Rajkumari vs State of Haryana and others 4. C.W.P No.6401 of 2009 Smt. Parvinder Kaur vs State of Haryana and others 5. C.W.P No. 6677 of 2009 Rajesh Malik vs State of Haryana and others 6. C.W.P No.6772 of 2009 Sushil Kumari vs State of Haryana and others 7. C.W.P No.6795 of 2009 Smt. Anita Rani vs State of Haryana and others *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.6327 of 2009 Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6331 & 6795 of 2009 Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6351 of 2009. Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6401 of 2009. Mr.R.K.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6677 of 2009. C.W.P No.6327 of 2009 ::2:: Mr.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6772 of 2009. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the official respondents. Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP No.6327 of 2009. Mr.S.K.Redhu, Advocate for Mr.Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP No.6331 of 2009. Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.5 in CWP No.6351 of 2009. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6327, 6331, 6351, 6401, 6677, 6772 and 6795 of 2009, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.6327 of 2009. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.2 filed today in Court is taken on record. The petitioners were all employees of the Vocational Education Department, Haryana. The said department was decided to be merged with the Education Department and consequent to that merger, all the employees were adjusted by posting order dated 15.4.2009. Within ten days thereafter, certain transfers were carried out. It is these transfers which have been challenged in these writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioners contends that within ten days of their posting, the petitioners were transferred without there being any C.W.P No.6327 of 2009 ::3:: administrative reason for the same, and only to accommodate influential persons. In the written statement, it has been mentioned that the original posting order had to be modified in view of certain requests on the ground of prejudice. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana has very fairly stated that in case the petitioners move a representation within three days from today, the competent authority will sympathetically consider their case within two weeks thereafter. The above offer is not seriously opposed by counsel for the petitioners. He, however, only stated that if the petitioners apply for leave to await the decision on their representation so as to avoid disruption, the official respondents should consider the said application also. I find this request to be a fair request. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner & Director General School Education, Directorate of School Education, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) to consider the representation, filed by the petitioners, in terms of the statement of learned Sr. DAG Haryana, sympathetically and positively decide the same within the period stipulated above. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Reader of this Court. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 06, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No.6327 of 2009 ::4::