Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and courts may refuse to intervene in administrative matters unless significant prejudice or injustice is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta and learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent State.

1.1. At the outset, it requires to be noted that having made extensive arguments, learned Advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama and learned Advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta seeks permission to withdraw the present petitions. The same is opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. It appears to this Court that the issue involved in the present petitions is not limited to the petitioners only and whereas, the issue involved is with regard to a class of persons namely those who have received the benefit of inter- district transfer and whereas, to ensure that there is no further litigation on this aspect, to this Court, having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to pass an order so as to ensure that the issue receives a quietus.

3. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have inter alia sought to question an administrative instruction dated 28.05.2025 by the Education Department, more particularly whereby the Education Department has inter alia instructed the Director of Primary Education to follow the new working pattern whereby in case of giving charge of head teacher, seniority is to be considered from the date of joining the department and not from the date of joining the district.

3.1. It appears that the petitioners before this Court are the teachers in primary schools who have received the benefit of inter-district transfer and whereas, as per the policy of the State Government vide various resolutions, lastly being Government Resolution dated 11.05.2023, in case of inter- district transfer at the request of the teacher concerned, the concerned teacher would lose her seniority and would be placed in the bottom of the seniority list in the concerned district as well as in the school. The petitioners having been transferred out of the district of their original appointment.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are working in primary schools which do not have a confirmed set-up of head teachers. It appears that confirmed set-up of head teachers is available only for schools having strength of more than 150 insofar as schools having standard 1 to 5 are concerned and for standard 6 to 8, minimum of more than 100 students are required for a permanent set-up of head teachers and whereas, the petitioners are working in schools less than 150 or 100 students as the case may be, where there is no permanent set-up.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that vide the instructions impugned in the present petitions, the Education Department of the State has instructed the Director of Primary Education to give charge of head teacher to teachers based upon their seniority in the date of joining in service as against their present seniority. The petitioners contend that since they are the junior most in the seniority list, the responsibility of accepting the charge of head teachers should not be fastened upon them, more particularly the petitioners contending that in terms of grant of benefits, the petitioners being placed at the bottom of the seniority list, they should not be given any additional responsibility.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta as well as learned Advocate Mr.Chudasama appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners would take this Court extensively thr