BRAJ NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these five writ petitions were treated as analogous and were heard together at the stage of admission. After these writ petitions were filed in the month of July/ August 2003 State Counsel took time for instructions and for filing counter affidavits and in the meantime order to maintain status quo was passed in all the writ petitions. At the stage of admission itself the matter was heard finally on four dates but nobody appeared to press CWJC No. 5636 of 2003 which relates to transfer of Headmasters/Teachers of Government Primary and Middle Schools in the district of Vaishali. Similarly, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 6369 of 2003 which relates to similar matter from the district of East Champaran. Hence, both the aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed for non -prosecution.

(2.) THE remaining three writ petitions relate to transfer of Headmasters/Teachers of Government Primary and Middle Schools in the district of Begusarai. In CWJC No. 6567 of 2003 there are altogether 38 petitioners but learned counsel for the petitioners has, at the outset, indicated that he is not pressing writ petition in respect of 12 persons whose names appear as petitioners no. 4, 16, 19 to 24, 29, 30, 36 and 38. The reason for not pressing the writ petition on behalf of the aforesaid petitioners was not disclosed but it is apparent that either they have accepted their transfer orders or they have obtained relief through representation or statutory appeal provided under Rules of 2002 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to govern transfer and disciplinary proceeding in respect of Teachers like the petitioners. CWJC No. 6568 of 2003 has been filed by two petitioners who are each other spouse. CWJC No. 8273 of 2003 has been filed on behalf of a single petitioner. Thus, there are 29 teachers from the district of Begusarai who have challenged their transfer under the Rules of 2002 which have been notified on 1.4.2002.

(3.) THE first submission on behalf of the petitioners was that such general and comprehensive order of transfer is not contemplated by Rules of 2002. Next it was submitted that even if such large number of transfer could have been done the same was done ignoring the provisions of Rule 3(2) and also the provisions of Rules 9 to 13. The next common submission was that petitioners have wrongly been denied posting to their home Blocks or to the places for which they had given options. Lastly, it was submitted that in some cases the certificate of residence submitted for change of home Block has not been properly appreciated and accepted and that the gradation list has not been made up -to -date for the purpose of effecting transfer as per Rules and that the transfer list also includes some Teachers who are no longer in service or are dead which shows that there has been no application of mind.