Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) By this common order, we shall decide Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17139 and 17845 of 2013 as they involve adjudication of and answer of common questions of law. The facts necessary for adjudication are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 17139 of 2013. The petitioner prays that clauses 7, 8 and 10 of the Inter District Transfer policy, dated 12.12.2012 may be quashed, insofar as it does not allow a male teacher, covered by a definition of a couple case, to get transferred to the place of posting of his wife, who is also a teacher.
(2.) A brief narrative of the facts would be appropriate. The petitioner is working as a Hindi Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School Bajghera, District Gurgaon. The petitioner got married to Sunita Rani, also a teacher posted at Government High School Bibarkatabad District Jhajjar. The petitioner and his wife are blessed with two children who are studying at a school in Bahadurgarh. The petitioner applied for an Inter -District transfer to the place of posting of his wife and submitted an affidavit that he is willing to forgo his seniority in District Gurgaon. The petitioner's case for transfer was rejected on the ground that as per clauses 7, 8 and 10 of the Inter District Transfer Policy dated 12.12.2012, a female alone can seek transfer and then also to the place of posting of her husband.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner and his wife are teachers working in the Education Department and, therefore, a couple case. The purpose of clauses, namely, 7, 8 and 10 of the Inter District Transfer Policy is to allow couples to live together but these clauses permits a female employee alone to seek transfer to the place of posting of her husband. The clauses, as framed, work to the detriment of a couple as the wife alone can join the husband and not vice versa. The purpose of these clause is to ensure that couples, working in the same department, reside at the same station but the clauses as framed operate to the detriment of a family. A wife may be posted at a better place and, therefore, a couple may decide to live together at the place of her posting but clauses 7, 8 and 10 of the Policy as framed, do not allow a wife or a husband to pray for such a transfer. The clauses, therefore, not only perpetuate a discrimination but in a given situation defeat the very object of the policy. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the policy, as framed, limits the option of a lady teacher as she can only be posted at the place where her husband is posted. The question is not one of making of a special provision for females but whether the object of these clauses, to ensure that couples employed in the same department, reside together is fulfilled or frustrated by these clauses.;