JUDGMENT
R.S. Verma, J.
1. All these writ petitions are a sequel to an order passed by Shri R.A. Boob, Joint Director (Karmik), Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikancr on 31.8.1992. This order appears as Annexure 14 in the writ petition filed by petitioner S.K. Vyas (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/1992).
2. Petitioners in all these writ petitions are teachers serving under the respondents. All of them have come to be posted in Schools within the City of Jodhpur; their salaries are being drawn/have been ordered to be drawn from schools falling outside City of Jodhpur. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular, the petitioners are being/have been relieved of their posts in schools within City of Jodhpur and are being/have been asked to join their duties in the schools from which their salaries are being/have been ordered to be drawn. Since the factual matrix and the legal questions involved in all these cases are identical/similar with certain variations, they are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The following tabular statement would show the position obtainable in respect of the petitioners. Its column No. 4 shows the officer under whose orders, particular petitioner was posted in the school mentioned in column No. 3. It is an admitted position that in pursuance of the aforesaid circular, all the petitioners are being/have been displaced from the schools mentioned in column No. 3 and are being/have been ordered to join at schools mentioned in column No. 5 of the table
_________________________________________________________________________________________
S. No. Name of School in which Officer School from which
petitioner posted/working under salary being drawn/
whose directed to be drawn
orders & petitioner asked to
posted join
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Surendra Kumar Siwanchi Gate District Govt. Secondary
Vyas Secondary Education School, Dhadhania
School, Jodhpur Officer
2. Smt. Renu Siwanchi Gate Deputy Govt. Secondary
Rajputohit Secondary Director School, Juhpur
School, Jodhpur
3. Krishna Sharma Govt. Higher Deputy Govt. Secondary
Sec. School, Director, School, Salwa Kalan
Chainpura, Education
Jodhpur
4. Rajendra Vyas Govt. Section School, Deputy Govt. Sec. Sechool,
Mandi, Jodhpur Director Dhundada
5. Satya Narain Govt. Section Deputy Govt. Sec. School,
Soni School, Jodhpur Director Balesar (Dhundada)
6. Panna Lal Govt. Sec, School, Deputy Govt. Sec. Sechool,
Poonjala, Jodhpur Director Beram
7. Smt. Shashi Govt. Upper Joint Govt. Middle School,
Primary School Director Nebra Raod
Vidhya Shala,
Jodhpur
8. Madn Lal Govt. Sec. School, Deputy Govt. Sec. School
Nagori Gate, Director School, Birami
Jodhpur
9. Dashrath Singh Mahatma Gandhi Deputy Govt. Sec. School,
School, Jodhpur Director Feench
10. Pramod Prakash New Govt. Senior Deputy Govt. Sec. School,
Sen Hr. Sec. School, Director Salwakalan
Jodhpur
11. Kaushalya Govt. Sec. School, Deputy Govt. Sec. School,
Agrawal Mandi, Jodhpur Director (Teh. Ossia)
12. Rajendra Singh Govt. Senior Hr. Director Govt. Sec. School,
Sec. School, Education Salwakalan
Chainpura, Officer
Jodhpur
__________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Petitioners in all these cases cla im that it was wrong on the post of the respondents to draw their salaries from schools noted in column No. 5 and they ought to have been paid their salaries from schools noted in column No. 3; further, the respondents are not justified in ordering that the petitioner be made to join at schools noted against their respective names and column No. 5 of the table. It has been alleged in some cases that the circular issued by the Joint Director (Karmik) does not apply in as much as original posting at the schools noted in column No. 3 was not made by the District Education Officer, hence, the order in question did not apply in terms to such petitioners. It is alleged that drawing of the salary from the Schools outside Jodhpur was only a fiscal arrangement and under garb of the said circular they cannot be displaced from their posting in the respective city schools. In some cases, the plea taken is that the circular in question is violative of equality Clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in as much as the circular restricts itself in application to teachers posted under orders of District Education Officer and excludes similarly situated teachers but posted under orders of other officers. The discrimination is without any reasonable basis and has no nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved by the circular and hence deserves to be quashed; consequently, action taken in pursuance of the circular in displacing the petitioners of their present postings is liable to be quashed. It has been alleged in some of the cases that the respondents are not adhering to the guidelines laid down in respect of transfers and postings and the circular is being actually misused to keep favourite teachers at Jodhpur even though under the said guidelines, the petitioners have a preferential claim to stay at Jodhpur and such favourite teachers sought to be/should have been transferred out of Jodhpur.
5. All these writ petitions have been opposed on behalf of the respondents, Replies to show cause notices have been filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/1992 Surendra Kumar Vyas v. State, S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 5393/1992 Smt. Renu Rajpurohit v. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5379/1992 Krishna Sharma v. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5331/1992 Smt. Shashi v. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5409/1992 Kumari Kaushlya v. State and Ors. and it has been submitted that these replies may be taken to be replies in other cases also with suitable modifications and variations. Replications/additional affidavits have also been filed in some of the cases.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. First of all, I may take note of the admitted fact that the State Government has issued a detailed policy statement laying down guidelines governing the transfers of teachers in the State. These guidelines have been placed as Annexure 15 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/1992 Surendra Kumar Vyas v. State. These guidelines are detailed and elaborate and are binding on all the respondents including the State. This position is not assailed before me. I have gone through Ex. 15 and find that the guidelines are reasonable and proper and must be adhered to in letter and spirit while passing transfer orders of teachers and its infraction must be seriously taken note of.
7. Now, I come to the impugned circular reference to which has already been made in para of this order. This circular may be profitably reproduced in extenso. It read as follows:
vkns’k
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
funs’kky; ds /;ku es ik;k x;k gS fd jkT; es ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh;ks }kjk fcuk fjDr ^^ in ds ftyk eq[;ky;ks @’kgjh {ks=ks es xzkeh.k fo|ky;ks ls v/;kidks dk LFkkukUrj.k @ lek;kstu @ izfrfu;qDr;ka dj nh x;h gSA tcfd ftyk eq[;ky;ks ij fLFkr fo|ky;ks es bl izdkj ds in LFkkfir v/;kidks dh vko;’drk ugh gS vkSj nwljh xzkeh.k fo|kky;ks es v/;kidks dh deh gsk tkrh gS rFkk ,sls v/;kidks dk osru Hkh xzkeh.k fo|ky;ks es v/;kidks dh deh gks tkrh gS rFkk ,sls v/;kidks dh vko;’drk ugh gS vkSj nwljh xzkeh.k fo|ky;ks es v/;kidks dh deh gks tkrh gS A rFkk ,sls v/;kidks dk osru Hkh xzkeh.k fo|ky;ks ls gh vkgfjr fd;k tk jgk gS A
iz’kklfud n`f”V ls ,oa Nk= fgr dsk ns[krs gq, funsZ’kkuqlkj leLr eaM+y @ ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh;ks dsk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl izdkj ds fd;s x;s LFkkukUrj.k @ lek;kstu @ izfrfu;qfDr vkns’k rRdky izHkko ls lekIr djs ,oa ftl v/;kid dk fu;ekuqlkj tgka osru vkgfjr fd;k tk jgk gS ml LFkku gsrq rRdky dk;ZeqDr djs A
vr% bl lEcU/k es dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls funs’kky; dks Ik= izkfIr fnol ls lkr fnu es ikyuk dj voxr djkos A
lgh@ &
¼vkj0 ,0 cwc ½
la;qDr funs’kd ¼dkfeZd½
izkFk ,oa ek/;- f’k{kk- jkt- chdkusj
f’k{kk foHkkx] tks/kiqj ¼jktLFkku½
dk;kZy; ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh Nk=&laLFkk, f’k{kk foHkkx] tks/kiqj jkt-
dzekad % ftf’k @ Nk= @ tks/k @ laLFkk&v@92-93@255@289 fnukad % 25-9-92 izfrfyfi fuEu dsk lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;’d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf”kr gS &
¼1½ f’k{kk lfpo egksn;] jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqj A
¼2½ funs’kd izkFkfed ,oa ek/;fed f’k{kk] jktLFkku ] chdkusj
¼3½ la;qDr funs’kd dkfeZd izkFkfed ,oa ek/;fed f’k{kk ] jktLFkku ] chdkusj A
¼4½ mifuns’kd iq:”k f’k{kk foHkkx] tks/kiqj
¼5½ leLr iz/kkukpk;Z iz/kkuk/;kid jk-lh-m-ek-fo-@ftyk tks/kiqj dks izsf”kr dj vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og vius fo|ky; es mijksDr vuqlkj LFkkukUrj.k @ lek;kstu @ izfrfuf/k;qDr ij dk;Zjr ofj”B v/;kidks A v/;kidks dks iz’kklfud n`f”V ls ,oa Nk= fgr dks ns[krs gq, rRdky ml LFkku ds fy, dk;ZeqDr djs A tgka ls mudh osru vkgfjr fd;k tk jgk gS A ,oa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls rRdky lwfpr djs A ;g vkns’k mPpre vf/kdkjh;ks @ U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s LFkxu vksn’k ij rd izHkkoh ugh gksxs A tc rd mPpre vf/kdkjh;ks }kjk vkxkeh vkns’k @ funsZ’k vFkok U;k;ky; ls LFkxu vkns’k lekIr ugh gks tkrk gS A
¼6½ vfrfjDr ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh @ dk;Zky; v/kh{kd LFkkuh; dk;Zy;
ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh ¼Nk=½
f’k{kk foHkkx ] tks/kiqj A^^
This circular takes notice of the ground realities viz. that on one hand teachers are not available to man schools in rural areas while on the other hand teachers manage to get posted in schools in towns and cities; this inspite of the fact that teachers in cities and towns are usually in excess of the sanctioned strength while sanctioned posts in village schools remain vacant for want of willing teachers. This shows how scant regard we have paid to proper development of our rural areas. Postings in rural areas have not been made sufficiently attractive to induce teachers and other Government employees to stay at their postings in villages. I do not mean to sermonize on this aspect of the matter but I am only recording ground realities of which judicial notice may be taken. Cities and towns afford diverse amenities and facilities which are not available in villages. Better living conditions in towns and cities make postings in towns and cities desireable, contrarywise, comparative harsh life of villages disuades employees from serving in rural areas. This has resulted in another pernicious result. Teachers and other government employees seek patronage both political and bureaucratic to secure city and town postings. Even employment of bribery and corruption in securing this desideratum can not be ruled out. Hence, I am of the firm conviction that we should lake stock of these ground realities and should provide realistic and pragmatic incentives to make rural postings more desireable and attractive.
8. Now, the avowed objective of the circular is to ensure that sanctioned posts in village schools should be filled at all costs and no city or town school should be allowed to have staff in excess of the sanctioned strength. The circular is, thus, eminently reasonable and proper. However, to restrict the circular in its application to only those teachers, who have been posted by the District Education Officers in excess of sanctioned strength in city and town schools and to exclude other teachers posted under orders of other officers, though in excess of sanctioned strength is exfacie violative of the equality clause, and does not bear any nexus to the object to be achieved by the circular. It is trite law that classification is always permissible. However, it is equally trite law that to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must bear a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved. Both these conditions must co-exist to make classification permissible. So far as the first condition is concerned, it presents no difficulty. The circular clearly creates two groups or categories of teachers-one group consisting of teachers posted under orders of District Education Officers and the other group consisting of teachers posted under orders of other officers like Deputy Director, Director etc. However, the circumstances of such posting is fortuitous and a matter of chance. The objection to second condition is unsurmountable in as much as the classification has no reasonable and rational nexus to the objective to be achieved. The plain and simple objectives of the circular are to ensure that (i) no body in excess of sanctioned strength is posted at a city or town school, (ii) schools in rural areas do not go without teachers. Now, the aforesaid classification of two groups does not in any way advance either of these objectives and may actually frustrate these twin objectives. Financial and administrative propriety requires that no person in excess of sanctioned staff of an establishment, may be appointed to such establishment. Administrative efficiency requires that no school should go without teachers and rural schools should have adequate staff. Hence, I find that on these counts, the circular is violative of equality and results in unreasonahk discrimination. The same is true of endorsement No. 5 to this circular so far as it speaks of orders of higher authorities because this endorsement again makes the circular applicable to one category of teachers and makes it inapplicable to another without any reasonable or rational basis. Again this does not bear any reasonable nexus to the objectives to be achieved.
9. Faced with the aforesaid situation learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the entire circular need not be quashed by this Court in as much as the vice-infected part of the circular could be severed from the permissible part and hence the court could at best strike down that part of the circular which was bad. This position has not been assailed on behalf of the petitioners that the vice infected part of the circular could be severedd from the permissible part. I also find that the permissible part of the circular is severable from the part which is bad. When it is so, it would not be proper to strike down the circular in its entirety and ends of justice would be met if the vice infected part of the circular alone is quashed. In these premises, J strike down the expression (sic) occuring in the first two lines of the circular. Likewise expression “(sic)” occuring in endorsement No. 5 of the circular is struck down. So also the expression (sic) in the said endorsement is struck down. After these portions have been struck off, the rest of the circular is perfectly valid and proper and would apply to all the petitioners irrespective of the fact as to who was the authority under whose orders each one of them secured a city or town posting.
10. Now, the grievances of the petitioners pertain to either alleged faulty implementation of the transfer policy or to certain equities arising in their favour because of peculiar circumstances in which they have come to be placed. However, these are grievances which can be best taken care of by the educational authorities themselves. Transfer is a normal incidence of service. No Government employee has a right to either to a place chosen by him or to stay for indefinite period at a place convenient to him. Transfers are ordered in administrative exigencies. Administrative efficiency at all levels is the paramount consideration and this alone should govern all transfers and postings. As an employee has no right to insist on a particular posting, likewise higher officers cannot treat transfers and postings as bounty and largesse to the favoured and, chosen few. Any transfer and posting ordered on extraneous consideration and not in keeping with the guidelines would be improper and bad and deserves to be taken serious note of by higher officers and serious disciplinary action should be taken against errant officers, who make such improper transfers. In my opinion, keeping in view this perspective, it would not be proper for me to interfere in the various transfers and postings, made in pursuance of the impugned circular. However, it would be meet and fit if the education department officers are asked to look into the grievances of all the petitioners objectively so that their legitimate and genuine grievances are redressed. Non-redressal of genuine grievances leads to discontent and discontent tends to generate a sense of injustice which demoralises an honest and sincere worker.
11. I would have left the matter in the hands of District Education Officer but since the impugned orders were passed by him, a psychological bias, not necessarily deliberate or intentional may operate and influence his mind and hence I would direct that a Committee consisting of the Deputy Director (Male), Jodhpur, Deputy Director (Female), Jodhpur and the District Education Officer, Jodhpur may look into the grievances of all the petitioners and similarly situated persons and may review their cases. If according to the policy guidelines, petitioners or any one of them deserve to be retained at Jodhpur, such persons may be so retained. In doing so, equities arising out of, any peculiar situation or humanitarian grounds may be kept in view consistent with the transfer guidelines and administrative exigencies. If any teachers posted at Jodhpur City Schools deserve to be sent for rural postings, in accordance with the guidelines they should be so sent so that the charge of alleged favoritism does riot survive. This exercise should be completed within a period of one month from today and till then the status quo as it exists on the date of this order i.e. today shall be maintained. After the Committee as aforesaid has reviewed the cases, the District Education Officer should pass appropriate posting/transfer orders in respect of the petitioners and their likes and other affected teachers. Those petitioners, who have not been paid their salaries because of their dislocations due to previous fiscal arrangements or changes made therein should be paid their dues also within the said period. Care should be taken to see that no teacher in excess of sanctioned staff is retained or continued in any school hereafter. The Director of Education, Primary & Secondary Education, Bikaner may consider setting up similar Committees for all the ranges so that cases of similarly situated persons may be reviewed and such persons may be saved from being driven to Courts of law or this Court. Litigation is a costly luxury for this poor State and whenever litigation can be avoided, it ought to be so avoided so that State Exchequer is saved from avoidable expenditure. Such Committees may also be directed to pass reasoned orders while reviewing the cases and in case petitioners or their likes desire to obtain copies of such orders, such copies may be made available oh request either free or on payment of such charges as may be prescribed by the Director. This shall enable the petitioners arid their likes to know the reasons which have impelled the members of the Committee to act in a particular way and may enable them to approach higher authorities for redressal of their grievances, in case such a step is at all necessary. Such an step by administration may inculcate a sense of confidence and trust and may diffuse discontent amongst teachers without placing any additional burden on exchequer.
12. With the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No orders as to costs.