SCA/1951/1994 of BHAVNABEN R. DANGARE Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 21 December 1995

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may beallowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see thefair copy of the judgment?

4. Whether this case involves a substantialquestion of law as to the interpretationof the Constitution of India,1950 or anyorder made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to theCivil Judge?

���Coram: S.K. KESHOTE,J

����(21-12-95)

Mr. Y.N. Oza for the petitioners

Mr. D.A. Bambania for respondents No.1,2

Mr. Hemant Munshaw for respondents no.3 & 4.

The petitioners are primary school teachers workingat present in different schools of Gandhinagar District(Rural). The petitioners filed this writ petitionchallenging the order of respondent No.2 dated 18-2-1993(annexure-C) and the order of respondent No.1 confirming theaforesaid order of respondent No.2. The petitioners havefurther challenged the consequential order passed by theDistrict Panchayat, Gandhinagar. The matter pertains totransfer of the petitioners from one school to anotherschool, though situated within the territorial jurisdictionof the District Panchayat, Gandhinagar. In the writpetition the petitioners have prayed for interim reliefwhich reads as follows:

"Pendingadmission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the order of respondent No.2 dated 18-2-1993 and also the order of .R

order of respondent No.2 dated 18-2-1993 and be pleased to suspend its execution, implementation, enforcement and operation and be pleased to restrain the respondents, their officers and agents from effecting inter-district transfers/retransfers of all the petitioners and further be pleased to direct all the respondents, their officers, agents and servants to maintain status quo as prevailed on 3-2-1994,and further be pleased to suspend the consequential orders passed in pursuance to the order dated 18-2--1993 and the order by the State Government confirming the above order.

2. In the writ petition notice was issued torespondents on 9-2-1994, and ad-interim relief in terms ofpara 13(c) except the bracketed portion by red pencil wasgranted. It is not in dispute between the parties that thetransfer order which has been made of the petitioners couldnot be carried forward or given effect to as this Court hasprotected the petitioners by granting ad-interim relief.These transfer orders are of the month of February,1994.Within a short period it will complete a period of twoyears. At this stage I do not consider it to be a fit casewhere the matter should be decided on merits because it isnot in dispute that the petitioners are holding transferableposts. When the petitioners are holding transferable posts,they have no right to continue for indefinite period at aparticular place. The competent authority has power to

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for theparties the writ petition is disposed of with the directionthat the orders passed earlier of the transfer ofpetitioners shall not be given effect to presently, but itshall be open to the respondents to pass appropriate ordersof transfer of the petitioners. While passing the orders oftransfer of the petitioners it is expected of therespondents that they will take care of the transferpolicies or the guidelines, if any, laid down in thisrespect. It is further expected of the respondents thatthey will not make any transfer orders of the petitionerstill the end of this academic session. Rule discharged.Ad-interim relief granted earlier by this court standsvacated. No order as to costs.