The limited scope of judicial review in State policy decision, the reasonableness of the classification to achieve the aims and objects of education and related transfer policy based on the RTE Act, and the fundamental rights of the teachers were the main legal points established in the judgment.

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent.

2. We are disposing off all these writ petitions, by a common judgment as the petitioners/teachers of Zilla Parishad have raised common and interlinked issues, and the contesting respondents are common.

3. The petitioners, who are primary teachers of Zilla Parishad Primary School of the respective district/area through the association and in individual capacity, have filed these petitions, there by the State Government (the “State”) resolution (the “resolutions”) dated 27th February, 2017 as modified on 15th April, 2017, 17/26/31, May, 2017 and 6/7/21 June, 2017 stated to be illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The issues are raised that these resolutions are contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 (“Z. P. Act”) and the Rules made there under, and to the earlier government resolutions. Prayers are also made to declare these resolutions bad in law and to retain the resolution dated 15th May, 2014. All in all a common challenge is raised to the new transfer policy of Zilla Parishad school teachers announced by the State.

4. There is no issue that all these teachers have been appointed by respective Zilla Parishad/authority under the Z.P. Act from time to time. They are under the service conditions of the respective Zilla Parishad for all the purpose. The Zilla Parishad/authority are required to follow the State circulars/resolutions of such teacher issued from time to time. The Z. P. Act defines various terms including “Block Development Officer”, “Chief Executive Officer”, “Development Scheme” as constituted under Section 4, “Executive Officer”, “Panchayat”, “Resolution”, “Relevant District Board” and “Zilla Parishad”. The power is also provided for abolition of district and/or alteration/division in boundary/block. The power of State to control the various affairs and to give directions through various resolutions is not in dispute.

The limited scope of judicial review in State policy decision:

5. The law with regard to the fundamental rights, revolving around doctrines including "treating equals unequally", 'discrimination in creating class' and/or 'unreasonable classification' or “discriminatory, unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal decisions” are quite settled. The Apex Court in Air India Limited: K. Amal Chopra : Prabha Rani : F. P. L. Tounghe : Menka Nathani Vs. Nergesh Meerza : I.A.G. : I. A. C. : I.A.C. : I.A.G. (1981 DGLS (SC) 389 : 1981 AIR(SC) 1829 : 1981 (3) Scale 1275 has observed as under :

"39. THUS from a detailed analysis and clow examination of the case of this Court starting from 1952 till today, the following propositions emerge :

(1) In considering the fundamental right or equality of opportunity a technical, pedantic or doctrinaire approach should not be made and the doctrine should not be invoked even if different scales of pay service terms, leave, etc. are introduced in different or dissimilar posts.

THUS where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, Article 14 cannot be attracted.

(2) Article 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. Thus, where persons belonging to a particular class in view of their special attributes, qualities, mode of recruitment and the like, are differently treated in public interest to advance and boost members belonging to backward classes, such a classification would not amount to discrimination having a close nexus with the objects sought to be achieved so that in such cases Article 14 will be A completely out of the way.

(3) Article 14 certainly applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis.

(4) Where equals and unequals are treated differently Art. 14 would have no application.

(5) Even if there be one class of service having several categories with different attributes and i