Satish Kumar And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 27.05.2026 CWP-9771-2026 AYUSH MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HARYANA (REGD.) AND ANR.
CWP-1539-2026 ARUN RATHEE CWP-3477-2026 ANIL KUMAR CWP-5021-2026 UDAYVIR JHAJHRIA
CWP-5408-2026 KRISHAN AND ORS.
CWP-5583-2026 SURINDER AND ANR.
` CWP-5653-2026 NAVNEET GUPTA AND ORS.
CWP-6080-2026 SUMITRA DEVI AND ANR.
CWP-12262-2026 DR. LALIT SAINI AND ORS.
CWP-2825-2026 BALRAJ AND ORS.
CWP-6514 -2026 SATISH KUMAR AND ANR.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
CWP-2141-2026 SUNIL NANDAL AND ORS.
CWP-4381-2026 SUMIT LOHAN CWP-5615-2026 WARDER SANDEEP AND ANR.
CWP-6150-2026 DR. SAPNA RANI AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate with Ms. Savita Chahar, Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate and Mr. Shamsher Singh, Advocate Mr. T.S. Dhull, Advocate Mr. Babbar Khan, Advocate Mr. K.S. Banyana, Advocate Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocate Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate Mr. Suryaveer Surjewala, Advocate Mr. Madan Pal, Advocae Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate Mr. Harish Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Teevar Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sukriti Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-6150-2026. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) Vide this common order, this Court shall dispose of above mentioned petitions since common questions of law is involved therein. The instant petition has been filed seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned letter dated 8.2.2026 (Annexure P-5) along with list (Annexure P-6), list showing vacancies at various stations (Annexure P-7) and list of Ayurvedic Medical Officers to participate in impugned Model Online Transfer Drive (Annexure P-8) as the same are on the basis of illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action of respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned letter dated 08.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) and connected lists (Annexures P-6 to P-8) relating to the Model Online Transfer Drive are wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as the respondents have selectively included only some Ayurvedic Medical Officers appointed in 2025 pursuant to Advertisement No. 16/2024 while excluding others similarly situated, by wrongly declaring certain posts as surplus or notional vacancies; further, the exclusion of posts held by contractual AMO Volunteers from the zone of consideration is in clear violation of Clause 3(xiv)(2) of the Model Online Transfer Policy dated 23.05.
2025, thereby denying equal opportunity to the petitioner and similarly placed officers to opt for stations of their choice, in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, rendering the entire transfer exercise liable to be quashed. He further contends that the posts presently occupied by Ayurvedic Medical Officer (AMO) volunteers on a contractual basis ought to be included in the transfer drive so as to ensure that all regularly selected Ayurvedic Medical Officers are afforded equal opportunity to exercise their preferences for all available stations. It is further contended that all newly appointed/regularly appointed Ayurvedic Medical Officers pursuant to Advertisement No.
16/2024 (Annexure P-2) should be treated uniformly and equally, either by including all of them in the transfer drive or by excluding all of them therefrom.
Today, Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana, has appeared before the Court and states that the State is willing to reformulate its policy by placing limited reliance on age and experience in cadre to the extent of 25% each, and for the remaining half, special circumstances to be enumerated in the policy. She also informs the Court that learned Advocate General has also given this undertaking before Division Bench of this Court on 21.05.2026 passed in CWP-7092-2026 and connected cases titled as 'Vijay Chaudhary and ors. vs. State of Haryana and anr.'
In view of the above undertaking given by learned State Counsel, this Court do not deem it appropriate to keep this bunch of writ petitions pending any further.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the State of Haryana to formulate an appropriate transfer policy and to proceed further in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s).
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 27.05.2026 JUDGE anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No