Hazari Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Anr

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
108+246
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
1. CWP-17498-2026 (O&M)
Hazari Lal and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
2. CWP-36168-2026 (O&M)
Ram Mehar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate
and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in both the cases.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana
in both the cases.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ
petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-
17498-2026.
2. On 29.09.2026, the following order was passed in CWP-
17498-2026:-
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 2
1. The factual matrix, as culled out from the
pleadings, is that the petitioners, who were working as Post
Graduate Teachers, were promoted to the post of Principal
(Rest of Haryana Cadre) vide order dated 29.10.2024.
They were allotted temporary stations through online
counselling vide order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-2). In
this counselling, the respondents did not offer all the
vacant posts of Principal; rather, only 478 posts were
offered, in Cluster Head Schools, PM Shri Schools, Model
Sanskriti Schools and common schools having a student
strength of 484 or more (Annexure P-3).
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, two similarly
placed promotees, namely, Rajpal and Vijay Pal Singh,
approached this Court by way of CWP-31941-2024 , titled
as ‘ Rajpal & another v. State of Haryana & another ’,
which was disposed of on 18.12.2024 with a direction to
decide their representation (Annexure P-4). Subsequently,
their representation was rejected by the respondents vide
speaking order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) on the
ground that the stations sought by them had a student
strength of less than 484 and were, therefore, not offered in
counselling.
3. Thereafter, in the subsequent promotion exercises
undertaken vide orders dated 07.05.2025 (Annexures P-6
and P-7) and 03.12.2025 (Annexures P-8 and P-9), the
very stations, which had been withheld from the
petitioners, were offered to the newly promoted Principals,
who are junior to the petitioners. The respondents have
now initiated yet another promotion process vide memo
dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-10). In their written
statement, the respondent No.1 & 2 have argued that the
criteria adopted in the two counselling exercises were
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 3
separate policy decisions taken in view of the
administrative exigencies then prevailing, and that the
postings were subject to the condition that the concerned
officers would participate in future transfer drives. On
07.09.2026, learned State counsel sought time to file an
affidavit explaining the difference in the administrative
exigencies prevailing on both occasions. Pursuant thereto,
the affidavit dated 23.09.2026 of the respondent no.2-
Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana has been
filed.
4. Learned senior counsel, after going through the
aforesaid affidavit dated 23.09.2026, submits that a feeble
attempt has been made in paras 7 and 8 thereof to justify
the impugned action of the respondents. It is contended
that the petitioners and the Principals promoted vide
orders dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P6) and 03.12.2025
(Annexure P-8) form one homogeneous class. The stations
withheld from the petitioners on the ground of low student
strength were offered to their juniors in the very next
exercises. It is argued that the respondents have thus
adopted different yardsticks for identically circumstanced
employees, which is clearly violative of Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned senior counsel submits that the criterion
of a student strength of 484 has been devised by the
respondents to create an unreasonable classification within
a homogeneous group of Principals. It suffers from the vice
of arbitrariness and has no nexus with the object sought to
be achieved. It is argued that the said criterion is also
illogical and cynical, as it presupposes that where the
student strength is less than 484, the studies of the students
would not suffer in the absence of a Principal, whereas
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 4
where the student strength exceeds 484, their academics
are bound to suffer on account of the non-availability of an
administrator.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. It is trite law that State action must be
based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all
similar situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous
or irrelevant considerations since that would be a denial of
equality. Where an act is arbitrary and it affects any matter
relating to public employment, it is implicit in it that it is
against the principles of fairness and equal treatment and
is therefore violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar, 2026 INSC
352 , while referring to State of Punjab and others v.
Davinder Singh and others, (2025) 1 SCC 1 and Ajay
Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others,
(1981) 1 SCC 722 , speaking through Justice Manoj Misra,
has opined as follows in this regard:
“22. Article 14 of the Constitution forbids
class legislation but permits reasonable
classification which must satisfy twin tests:
(1) that the classification must be founded on
an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
those that are grouped together from others,
and (2) that differentia must have rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved
by the Act - The differentia which is the basis
of the classification and the object of the Act
are distinct things and what is necessary is
that there must be a nexus between the two.
(13) Legislative and executive action may
accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin
tests of reasonable classification and the
rational principle correlated to the object
sought to be achieved. The burden of proof
lies on the State to affirmatively establish that
these twin tests have been satisfied. The State
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 5
must therefore not only establish the rational
principle on which classification is founded
but correlate it to the objects sought to be
achieved (14). Besides, equality is a dynamic
concept with many aspects and dimensions,
and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and
confined within traditional and doctrinaire
limits. From a positivistic point of view,
equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact,
equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a
republic while the other, to the whim and
caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an
act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is
unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is therefore violative
of Article 14, and if it affects any matter
relating to public employment, it is also
violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16
strike at arbitrariness in State action and
ensure fairness and equality of treatment .
They require that State action must be based
on valid relevant principles applicable alike to
all similar situate and it must not be guided by
any extraneous or irrelevant considerations
because that would be denial of equality.
xxx xxx xxx
24. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder
Singh & Ors, (2025) 1 SCC 1 , Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, C.J. (as His Lordship then
was), while explaining the contours of Article
14, wrote:
“85. The Constitution permits valid
classification if two conditions are
fulfilled. First, there must be an
intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons grouped together
from others left out of the group. The
phrase “intelligible differentia” means
difference capable of being understood.
The difference is capable of being
understood when there is a yardstick to
differentiate the class included and
others excluded from the group. In the
absence of the yardstick, the
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 6
differentiation would be without a basis
and hence, unreasonable. The basis of
classification must be deducible from
the provisions of the statute;
surrounding circumstances or matters of
common knowledge. In making the
classification, the State is free to
recognize degrees of harm. Though the
classification need not be mathematical
in precision, there must be some
difference between the persons grouped
and the persons left out, and the
difference must be real and pertinent.
The classification is unreasonable if
there is little or no difference. Second,
the differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the law, that is, the basis of
classification must have a nexus with
the object of the classification.””
(emphasis added)
7. In the present case, the petitioners and the
Principals promoted vide orders dated 07.05.2025
(Annexure P-6) and 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-8) belong to
the same cadre, namely Principal (Rest of Haryana Cadre).
All of them were given initial postings through online
counselling on the basis of their merit, seniority positions,
MIS points and the preferences exercised by them. The only
distinction between them is the date of their promotion. Yet,
the petitioners were admittedly confined to a list of 478
stations, whereas their juniors were permitted to opt for the
very stations that had been withheld from the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out
any real and intelligible difference between the two sets of
promotees which could justify such differential treatment
within a homogeneous class.
8. Further still, the stated object of the criterion of a
student strength of 484 is that the studies of the students
may not suffer in the absence of an administrator.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 7
Accordingly, the classification created by the respondents
bears no rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. The need of a school for a Principal does not
disappear merely because its student strength falls below
484. The speaking order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-5)
itself records that the schools at Kosli, Juddi and Bawaa
had a student strength of 194, 94 and 105 respectively. If
such schools could be left without a Principal in November
2024, the respondents were required to explain why the
same stations were found to require immediate attention in
the subsequent exercises. However, the affidavit dated
23.09.2026 offers no such explanation and merely states
that the vacancy position was reevaluated and that the
stations blocked earlier were found to require immediate
attention. It does not disclose any change in the student
strength of these schools, or any other change in
circumstances, between the two exercises. As held by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M. Vijayakumar’s case
(supra) , the burden lies on the State to establish the
rational principle underlying a classification and to
correlate it to the object sought to be achieved.
9. However, at this stage, when this Court was
inclined to pass an interim order, the learned State counsel
sought one opportunity to have complete instructions in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In the
interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
one final opportunity to learned counsel for the
respondents to do so.
10. List on 07.10.2026.
3. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that the
respondent/Department will initiate a transfer drive wherein all eligible
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 8
Principals including the petitioners would be permitted to participate.
He further submits that the respondents would not apply the criterion of
student strength to exclude any otherwise eligible Principal from
participating in the transfer drive or create any artificial classification
amongst the Principals belonging to the same cadre on that basis.
Learned State counsel further contends that the schedule for the
aforesaid transfer drive would be issued within a period of one month.
4. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by learned State
counsel, no further adjudication is required in the present writ petitions.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the
statement made by learned State counsel. The order dated 30.10.2026
passed in CWP-17498-2026 stands modified to the extent indicated
hereinabove. The respondents are directed to permit all eligible
Principals including the petitioners to participate in the forthcoming
transfer drive, without applying the criterion of student strength as a
basis for restricting their participation or creating any artificial
classification amongst the Principals belonging to the same cadre, which
is contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
respondents shall also adhere to the schedule for the transfer drive, as
undertaken before this Court.
5. It is made clear that any deviation from the directions
issued by this Court, would entitle the petitioner(s) to move an
appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08

CWP-17498-2026 & CWP-36168-2026 9
6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
11.11.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
12.11.2026 12:08