SURENDRA KUMAR VYAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions are a sequel to an order passed by Shri R.A. Boob, Joint Director (Karmik), Primary and 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.) 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.