JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Since a common issue and facts are involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard and decided finally.

FACTS AND ISSUES:

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are appointed as teachers, are seeking intra-district (inter-taluka) transfers. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside the condition Nos.3 and 4 of the Government Resolution dated 21.01.2014, which prohibits intra-taluka transfers of the teachers till the period of ten years. Some of the petitioners have also filled-up the bonds in view of their appointment orders.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are being denied the intra-district transfer from one taluka to another in view of the provisions of Government Resolution dated 01.04.2022, even after completion of more than 5 years of service, more particularly, Clause-4 of Chapter-G, and submitted that the petitioners are being discriminated in view of the said provisions, which allows inter-district transfer, after completion of 5 years of service, but does not allow inter-taluka transfer.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that though the appointment of the petitioners are governed by the conditions mentioned therein, which prohibits them from seeking any kind of transfer either from one taluka to another or one district to another district till the period of ten years of service, as per the provisions of Government Resolution dated 21.02.2014, however, it is submitted that in view of the subsequent Government Resolution dated 01.04.2022, more particularly Chapter-G, Clause-4, such petitioners would be entitled to intra-district transfer from one taluka to another, after completion of 5 years.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi appearing for few of the petitioners has submitted that assuming that bond is given by such teachers, the same would be in form of contract and in view of the subsequent action of the respondents in framing new condition in the policy dated 01.04.2022, the conditions of appointment and the bond which is filled-in by the petitioners at the time of appointment will get diluted.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Devi vs. Hari Singh, (1971) 2 SCC 288, Prabodh Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 167, S. Seshachalam vs. Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 16 SCC 72 and also on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brijeshkumar Verma vs. Aurangjeb and Another, 2018 ACJ 2349.

4.3 It is also contended by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners that the respondent authorities cannot create the class within the class and teachers like the petitioners, who have completed 5 years of service, are entitled to transfer from one taluka to another within district since as per the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2022, more particularly Chapter-G Clause-4, the respondent authorities have permitted inter-district transfer in case of those teachers, who have completed 5 years of service.

4.4 It is submitted that the petitioners, who are appointed on bond would remain in the same taluka for 10 years, which would be contrary to the subsequent policy dated 01.04.2022. It is also submitted that the aforesaid conditions, which are incorporated in their appointment orders and bonds, are incorporated in view of the Government Resolution dated 21.01.2014, more particularly Clauses 3 and 4 and hence, the aforesaid conditions are required to be quashed and set aside in view of the subsequent Government Resolution dated 01.04.2022. They have further submitted that the teachers, who have entered into the bonds or appointed with such conditions cannot be discriminated only because they have entered into such bonds and even the junior teachers are allowed to participate in the transfer camps for intra-district transfer and hence, gross injustice is meted out to the c