The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Secretary, Department of School Education, Punjab, to remain present in court on August 17 after the state counsel failed to satisfy the court on a number of queries concerning the department’s Transfer Policy, 2019.At the onset, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed that the state counsel had been confronted with a number of queries regarding the transfer policy, but was unable to satisfy it. “Prima facie, this court is of the view that the Transfer Policy, 2019, is absolutely vague,” the bench observed while taking note of Assistant Director, School Administration, Mahesh Kumar’s presence before the court.Justice Tiwari also noted that the questions put forth by it remained unanswered despite the presence of the departmental officer. “Since the questions put forth by this court remained unanswered, notwithstanding the presence of the officer of the department, this court is left with no other option, but to call upon the Secretary, Department of School Education, Punjab,” the court said.The matter has been adjourned to August 17, with the Secretary directed to remain present in court on the next date of hearing. The bench had, at an earlier hearing, taken note of the petitioner’s allegations regarding lack of transparency in the award and publication of points under the Punjab Teachers Transfer Policy, 2019.The petitioner’s counsel, referring to the points earned by the petitioner during the general transfers for 2025 under the policy, submitted that there was only a marginal increase in the petitioner’s points as compared with the general transfers for 2021.Counsel further submitted that every teacher earned one point for each year of service, up to a maximum length of service of 35 years. However, there was no transparency regarding the manner in which these points were being awarded to candidates, the counsel contended.It was also submitted that the points earned by teachers were not uploaded on the official website. This, according to the petitioner, deprived candidates of an opportunity to raise objections if points had been incorrectly awarded.The petitioner’s counsel argued that the procedure adopted under the transfer policy had consequently become “totally opaque”.