MUKESH KUMAR GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by as many as 19 persons who are said to be Assistant Teachers serving in Government schools. In this writ petition, they have sought for mandamus to declare the Transfer Rationalisation Policy, marked as Annexure P-2 as ultra vires the Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the transfer order, marked as Annexure P-3, dated 6-7-2006 whereunder the petitioners have been transferred from the present places of service to various places where there are shortages for teachers or vacancies exist. A copy of the impugned policy is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-2 at Pages 72 to 82 of the material papers.

(2.) While attacking the validity of the impugned policy, Shri V.G. Tamaskar, learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the direction in the policy to conduct counselling to ascertain the willingness/preferences of the teachers is arbitrary and unreasonable. He would submit that the provision to conduct counselling has created a fertile grazing ground to unscrupulous and corrupt officials in the Education Department to feed on innocent teachers and harass them. He would also submit that there is full scope for the Transferring Authorities to misuse and abuse the power conferred on them under the policy. Shri V.G. Tamaskar would next contend that the provision in the impugned policy that only the relatively junior teachers should be transferred is also totally arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. These are the only two grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the validity of the impugned policy.

(3.) The power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution to review a policy decision of the State is very much circumscribed and limited by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts. The wisdom behind the policy decision of the State which is evolved to achieve certain goals which are not obnoxious to the Constitution or law cannot lightly be interfered with by the reviewing Court. As the Courts repeatedly held, the Courts will not normally interfere with the policy decisions of the Government, and Government authorities; the Courts must exercise power of judicial review with circumspection. The wisdom in a policy decision of the Government or statutory authorities, as such, is not justiciable unless such policy decision is capricious, arbitrary, whimsical so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution or any statutory or constitutional provision. The only thing to be seen by the Court when a policy decision is assailed is whether the policy in question is arbitrary or violative of any mandatory provisions of law. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR1996SC2462 , it was held that unless policy decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or any law, Court must exercise jurisdiction with circumspection, particularly, when the issues are intertwined with policy decision and technical issues. In Sitaram Co. v. Union of India : [1990]1SCR909 , the Apex Court held that the Court does not possess the expertise required to determine the matter, and the determination has been made by experts appointed by the Government. In Sher Singh v. Union of India : (1996)IIILLJ365SC , the Court opined that there shall be no judicial review if the policy decision is neither unfair nor mala fide. In A.M.S.A. Karmachari Santh v. State : AIR1996SC2257 , the Court has opined that a policy decision shall not be normally questioned in a Court of law and the Court cannot find fault with discrimination based on policy.