Civil Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.11.2011 Upkar Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 08.01.2010, Annexure P-12 whereby his request for permitting him to join Department of Sports (respondent No. 4) has been rejected on the ground that it was not feasible to transfer his services to said department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is the only person serving in Education Department. All the employees similarly placed as the petitioner have already been transferred to Department of Sports and thus prayer of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. According to him, the impugned decision is infact arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He prays that the same be quashed by this court. The prayer has, however, been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel. He submits that pursuant to direction issued by this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2010 2 CWP No. 16694 of 1996 decided on 12.12.2000, options were invited from the coaches working in the Department of School Education for transfer to the Sports Department. However, petitioner was not willing and thus he was retained in his parent department. Later, when a representation was submitted by him, it was found that it was not practically feasible to transfer his services. Besides there being no proposal to abolish the post occupied by the petitioner in the Education Department, in light of option given by him vide Annexure R-1, he is being retained in the parent department. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that petitioner joined the Education Department in the year 1987 as a Kho-kho coach. He continued to serve the said department for number of years. In the year 1993, State of Punjab proposed merger of three departments i.e. Sports, Punjab Panchyati Raj Khel Parishad and the Sports Wing of the Education Department. The proposed merger was, however, quashed by this court. Another notification was thereafter issued by the Government on 23.02.1998 and it was stipulated therein that effected employees would be given an option for transfer to the new department. This notification was also challenged before this court vide CWP No. 16694 of 1996. The petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment. It was, however, observed as under:- “We have heard counsel for the parties and without going into merits of the claims made herein, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to issue fresh notices to each of the petitioners individually seeking their option whether they would like to join the new Department. Let this be done within two weeks from the date Civil Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2010 3 of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners on receipt of such notices will submit their response to the competent authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of such notices. Thereafter, the competent authority will take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in Avtar Singh’s case (supra). No costs” Pursuant to aforesaid direction, options were invited from the employees. The petitioner also gave an option which was conditional in nature. The same is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “With due deference, it is submitted that I have option of continuing in the present Department, I would prefer to continu here. But in case I have no such, option and my present cadre best is going to be abolished, in that case I am enclosing the option for posting in the newly created department of sports and youth services in the Performa (with a little addition that at first the conditions of service in the new Department may kindly be determined and clarified, As explained in the a detailed note attached to the option.” In terms of aforesaid option given by the petitioner, he was retained in his parent department and was never transferred to the Sports Department. Aggrieved, he served a legal notice on the respondents. Since no decision was taken thereon, he filed CWP No. 5390 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.04.2006 with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision within a period of four months. A speaking order was thereafter passed which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that from the option given by him it was clear that he was not willing to be transferred to the Sports Civil Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2010 4 Department. The belated claim made by him was rejected with the observation that it was not practically feasible to transfer his services to the Sports Department. In view of stand taken before this court by State that there is no proposal to abolish the post which the petitioner is occupying, there appears to be no ground to accept the prayer of the petitioner for transfer to Sports Department. In the option dated 07.03.2001, Annexure R-1 given by the petitioner he has clearly stated that he would prefer to continue in his parent department. Only in the eventuality of his cadre being abolished, he would opt for transfer to Sports Department. As there is no proposal for abolition of the post held by the petitioner, he has no case to press his claim. In view of preference given by him, the department has decided to retain him in the parent department. I thus find no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. November 16, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE