Transfer policy based on just and fair classification such as age factor is valid and not violative of Article 14

The petitioners challenged the transfer policy which provides for place of posting based on the score obtained by an employee. As per the policy, 60 marks earmarked age, the higher the age the higher the marks, resultantly the younger employees are not likely to get posting of their choice. Further, there are negative marks for negative performance. It was contended by the petitioners that the transfer policy was violative of Article 14 (Right to equality). The Punjab and Haryana High Court (“PHHC”) considered the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, where it was concluded that it is not function of the Court to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and they must necessarily be left to Government of the day to decide, the court does not have expertise to correct the administrative decision. Legality of policy and not the wisdom or soundness of policy, is the subject of judicial review. Basis the analysis of the Supreme Court, the PHHC in this CWP 25754-2023, observed that every employee who is working with respondent is bound to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. Every employee is bound to grow and turn 50 plus. The respondent as per its wisdom has made classification which seems to be just and fair. The respondent has formed an opinion that employees with higher age should be given preference as they certainly have better experience but more family responsibilities and health issues. This classification is not going to affect young employees because at later stage of their life, they are also going to be benefited, hence it is not violative of Article 14. The PHHC refused to interfere with the said transfer policy and dismissed the petitions.