The classification of government and non-government employees regarding transfer policies is valid, and the court cannot interfere in executive decisions unless statutory violations occur.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner in leading petition, Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ashwini Kumar, Shri Vivek Mishra, Shri Shrikant Mishra, Shri Vijay Dixit along with Shri Devam Shukla, Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners in connected writ petitions, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel representing the Board, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri D.P. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

A. Prelude

2. The common facts of these bunch of writ petitions lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners apparently claim to have been selected and posted as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools in various districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh as per the selection process prescribed under the U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1981”). This Court may not be detained any further by incorporating unnecessary facts related to the place/district, where these Assistant Teachers are posted. Suffice to say that each of the petitioners in these bunch of writ petitions are desirous of seeking inter-district transfer in view of policy decision taken by the State vide Government order dated 02.06.2023, wherein Clause 12 (4) permits additional 10 quality points for all those teachers, whose spouse are in Government services.

3. Subsequently, the Board of Basic Education vide another order dated 16.06.2023, clarified the scope of the term “Government Service” used in Clause 12(4) of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023, by explaining that as per Clause 8 of the order dated 16.06.2023, only those employees, who are governed by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, shall be considered to be a part of Government Service to avail the quality point marks as per Clause 12 (4) of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023.

4. Besides the common ground for challenge as mentioned in these petitions, it is also seen that basically the petitioners are seeking relief from this Court in the nature of declaration that the employment status of their respective spouse(s) held in different organisation like public sector banks, public sector enterprises like LIC/NHPC etc. and other statutory Corporations as well as Assistant Teachers under Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, as “Government service”, so that these petitioners can avail and/or be entitled to the additional quality point marks of “10” as mentioned in Clause 12(4) of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023 or Clause 10(4) of the Order dated 08.06.2023.

5. Additionally, Writs (No. 4920 of 2023, 5947 of 2023 etc.) have also been filed claiming weightage of ‘10’ marks for serious disease and few writs (No. 4727 of 2023, No. 5090 of 2023 etc.) have been filed on the ground that in the Government Order dated 02.06.2023, provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2017”) with emphasis on Rule 5(2) (a) and (b) of Chapter II of the Rules, 2017 were not followed. Yet, Writ (No. 5906 of 2023 etc.) has been filed on the ground that the petitioners had been wrongly reverted to her district after transfer as she had taken ‘10’ marks for serious ailments wrongly. Further, some writ (No. 4722 of 2023 etc.) has been filed challenging Clause-1 of Order dated 16.06.2023 as weightage of ‘10’ marks for spouse working in same district would not be awarded to them as provided under Clause 12 (4) of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023.

B. Prevailing Rules and Policy

6. It is not in dispute that service conditions of these petitioners are