The mass transfers of teachers outside their districts were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they were arbitrary, discriminatory, and not based on any objective criteria.

Headnote:
TRANSFER OF TEACHERS - Mass transfers of teachers outside their districts - Whether violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Guidelines issued by the Government - Whether binding on the Government - Mala fides in transfers - Interference by politicians and legislators - Scope of judicial review.
Fact of the Case:

Mass transfers of more than 20,000 teachers in Rajasthan were challenged by IIIrd grade teachers on various grounds, including mala fides against the Education Ministry and some members of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioners alleged that the transfers were made at the instance of MLAs, MPs, and other workers of the ruling party and that they were violative of the guidelines issued by the Government and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mass transfers of teachers were mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It held that the guidelines issued by the Government were binding on the Government and that the interference by politicians and legislators in the transfer process was improper. The court also observed that the doctrine of "Durante bene Desito" (during desire) or "Durante bene Placito" (during pleasure) could not be invoked to justify arbitrary transfers of teachers.
Issues: 1. Whether the mass transfers of teachers outside their districts were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the guidelines issued by the Government were binding on the Government? 3. Whether the interference by politicians and legislators in the transfer process was improper? 4. Whether the doctrine of "Durante bene Desito" (during desire) or "Durante bene Placito" (during pleasure) could be invoked to justify arbitrary transfers of teachers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the mass transfers of teachers were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they were arbitrary, discriminatory, and not based on any objective criteria. The court observed that the transfers were made at the instance of politicians and legislators and that they were not in the interest of the teachers or the education system. 2. The court held that the guidelines issued by the Government were binding on the Government and that the Government could not deviate from them without any valid reason. The court observed that the guidelines were issued in order to ensure transparency and fairness in the transfer process and that they were in the interest of the teachers and the education system. 3. The court held that the interference by politicians and legislators in the transfer process was improper and that it amounted to political interference in the administration. The court observed that such interference could lead to favoritism, nepotism, and corruption and that it was detrimental to the interests of the teachers and the education system. 4. The court held that the doctrine of "Durante bene Desito" (during desire) or "Durante bene Placito" (during pleasure) could not be invoked to justify arbitrary transfers of teachers. The court observed that these doctrines were relics of the past and that they had no place in a modern democratic society. The court held that the transfer of teachers should be based on objective criteria and that it should be in the interest of the teachers and the education system.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the transfer orders of the petitioners. It directed the respondents to take steps to send Ramchander back to his original district of Jhunjhunu within a period of one month. The court also directed that the other petitioners would not be required to carry out the transfer orders, which were quashed, so far as the petitioners were concerned.

JUDGMENT

1. -"Durante bene Desito"? (during desire). Whether reincarnation of "Durante bene Placito"? (during pleasure).

2. The doctrine of His Majesty's Pleasure whether replaced by Doctrine of Minister or Legislator's desire?2A. Is it old wine in new bottle?

"During desire" in matter of mass transfers of teachers in Rajasthan in 1980 is under fire in these 13 writ petitions, where IIIrd grade teachers have challenged their transfers outside their districts on manyfold grounds including serious allegation of mala fides against the Education Ministry and some of the members of the Legislative Assembly.

3. The preamble of the Constitution proclaims "equal opportunity" to citizens, followed by Part III of the Constitution having Article 14, 15 and 16 smashes the doctrine of the King's pleasure and establishes rule of law. The violations, breach, flagrant disregard and clear contravention of rule of law have resulted in manyfold challenges by the citizens and this court as `watch-dog' of the Constitution and the rights of citizens, has never hesitated in striking it down, as discussed by me in the recent decision of Dr. (Mrs.) Rukmani Vaish v. State of Rajasthan decided on 31-7-81 : (1982 Lab I C NOC 11).

4. A teacher has got very important place in the society, so far as theoritical morales are concerned, but economically he happens to be almost last in the ladder and then again the class III teacher is one of the miserable species of civil services as mostly his economic plight goes uncared.

5. In the auditorium of services, he occupies the last row and there also he is pushed back in a dark corner, with a pathetic skeleton and woeful tale, not to be heard. After three decades of functioning of Indian Constitution, he is nearest to poverty line. Sky above and earth below, he has hardly any roof to shelter. Perspiration without inspiration is his lot. Sandwitched in problems of Bread and Butter, the State expects from him to produce national architects of tomorrow.

6. The present bunch of cases provides a typical woeful tale of the third grade teachers who have been allegedly thrown from pole to pillar and pillar to pole on account of mass transfers of more than 20,000 teachers in Rajasthan, according to the allegation of the petitioners. The fact that the respondents administrative instructions, the guidelines, the principles of transfer policy laid down from time to time always insisted that this unfortunate lot of civil service, which is lowest in the ladder and economically depressed and suppressed, should not be transferred outside the districts where they have been appointed originally and are functioning. But all those guidelines, policy decisions and Government instructions were to remain on papers with mass disobedience and violation of them by the Education Ministry of Rajasthan, is a matter which has become patent in this bunch of cases, if at all, it was latent.

7. With the above preamble, now let me mention the traditional facts of the present cases.

8. Dwarkesh Sharma is a teacher Grade-III having 16 years of service at his credit and drawing a salary of Rs. 570/- p.m. He happens to be a teacher in Rampura, District Sikar, Rajasthan. The petitioner's case is that the guidelines have been formed by the Government for the transfer of teachers in Rajasthan, the latest of them being guidelines of 20-1-79 in regard to the transfer of Grade-III teachers. These guidelines normally regulate the transfer of teachers from one district to another, but in case of teachers themselves seeking transfers, some exceptions have been provided on the basis of procedure mentioned therein. But, in that case also, the upper limit has been kept as 10% of the vacant posts. These guidelines have been published in the Official Magazine (Shivra) of the Education Department on 23-3-79 and 20-6-79.

9. The petitioner's case is that the State Government for purely political reasons and other grounds made wholesale transfers of teachers on unprecedented s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Raj) 428

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHG.M.Lodha, J.Baldev Ram and others - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan and others - RespondentCivil Writ Petns Nos. 1829, 1428, 1429, 1499, 1513, 1546, 1547, 1600, 1601, 1624, 1625, 1644 and 1826 of 1980.Decided On : 13-08-1981

The mass transfers of teachers outside their districts were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they were arbitrary, discriminatory, and not based on any objective criteria.

Cases Referred (4)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.M.Lodha, J.
Baldev Ram and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petns Nos. 1829, 1428, 1429, 1499, 1513, 1546, 1547, 1600, 1601, 1624, 1625, 1644 and 1826 of 1980.
Decided On : 13-08-1981