JUDGMENT :

1. By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who were working as primary teachers have challenged Clause7 of Chapter-H of the New Transfer Policy of the State dated 01.04.2022. According to the petitioners, the policy to the extent which provides that as and when the deputation period of Block Resource Clusters BRC/CRC/URC are over and when their time for repatriation comes, the clause provides that they shall be repatriated to their mother school and their initial seniority shall be counted from the date of their being in that mother school, is not only bad on count of the principle of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, that it is unreasonable, and that it is retrospective in operation.

2. The group of petitions was argued irrespective of individual facts in each petition by the learned counsels for the respective parties, inasmuch as, there was a consensus that irrespective of the facts of each individual case, arguments would be confined to the validity of Clause-7 of Chapter-H of the Policy of Transfer dated 01.04.2022.

3. The learned counsels for the petitioners who have argued at length for the petitioners are Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shikha Panchal, Mr. Gaurav Chudasama and Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel for the respective parties. For the State arguments have been advanced by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader assisted by Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and also by Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP.

4. Cause of action in each petition and compelling them to approach the Court is their respective transfer orders passed by the Competent Authorities dislodging the petitioners from their respective schools on account of the operation of Clause-7 of Chapter-H of the Government Policy of Transfer dated 01.04.2022.

5. Facts in brief would indicate that the State, prior to the policy of transfer dated 01.04.2022, had in place a policy circular of 23.05.2012 by which transfer policy of teachers was governed. In respect of such policy, Clause-25 of the policy provided that as and when a situation arises that a CRC / BRC had to be repatriated as a teacher, on the basis of his original seniority he would be repatriated to his mother school if there was a vacancy. In absence of a vacancy in the mother school, he or she would alternatively be placed on a vacant post of the paycentre alternatively in absence of a vacancy at a paycentre he would be placed at the vacant post of the same taluka and in the absence of vacancy there he would be posted at the post available in the nearby taluka. By the impugned Clause-7 of Chapter-H of the resolution dated 01.04.2022, the State Government tweaked the policy and by the Clause under challenge it provided that as and when BRCs/CRCs/URCs on the end of their deputation in the event of their repatriation would be placed at the original school / mother school only. As a result of the event of repatriation, such BRCs/CRCs being placed in the same school would result in a surplus or addition to the establishment of that school. Consequently, the junior teacher who is working in the school where the BRC/CRC candidate has to be repatriated has to move out.

6. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that this policy operates and causes heartburn and injustice to the teachers who have been placed in the schools little knowing that on repatriation of a BRC/CRC/URC they will have to be displaced as a result of this new policy Clause which was otherwise flexible. It was the case of the counsels for the petitioners that by virtue of the policy dated 23.05.2012, in case of repatriation of a BRC/CRC/URC it was not necessary for such a BRC/CRC/URC to be placed at the original school. In case of the original school being already occupied and the post not being vacant, such BRC/CRC would be placed in the vacant post at the pay-centre if not at