ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waives service of rule.

2 Heard Mr.Shalin M. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with Ms.Aditi Raol, learned advocate for the petitioners.

The prayer in this petition reads as under:

“27 A Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent authorities declaring the petitioners to be surplus teachers as bad in law, illegal being contrary to the Government Resolution dated 23.05.2012, arbitrary, carpiricous and violative of petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

B Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the seniority list of the respondentauthorities prepared on the basis of their entry in the upper primary division;

C Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the transfer orders transferring the petitioners to other schools, as bad in law, illegal being contrary to the Government Resolution dated 23.05.2012, arbitrary, capricious and violative of petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and

16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

D Your Lordships may be pleased to issue awrit of certiorari to quash and set aside the transfer orders transferring the petitioners to other schools:

E Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh school-wise seniority list of teachers on thebasis of their date of entry in the school for the purpose of transferring the junior most surplus teacher to another school;

F Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to retransfer the petitioners to their original schools;

G Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay/suspend the implementation and operation of the transfer orders issued to the petitioners; and H Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other or/and further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.”

3 In context of the prayer made in the petition, Mr.Mehta, Senior Advocate, would draw the attention of the Court to a decision rendered by this Court rendered in batch of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 3255 of 2019, where the same relief was considered by this Court. In that petition, the Court, while dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, held as under:

“20. The petitioners were considered as surplus teachers considering their appointment in upper primary section of standard 6 to 8 in the seniority list maintained by the respective schools considering the date of entry in upper primary section.

21. Thus the seniority list of standard 1 to 5 and that of standard 6 to 8 was prepared on the basis of Government Resolution dated 26.10.2020 without considering the Rule 3 of Chapter-Kh(B) of Government Resolution dated 23.5.2012 which stipulates that for the purpose of declaring surplus teacher, date of appointment in particular school is required to be considered. Therefore, the date of appointment of the petitioners in the respective schools is required to be considered and not the date when the petitioners were allotted teaching work in upper primary section of standard 6 to 8.

22. Thus the respondents have committed an error in preparing the seniority list for standard 1 to 5 and that for standard 6 to 8 as per Government Resolution dated 26.10.2020 which cannot be permitted in view of Rule 3 of Chapter Kh(B) of the Government Resolution dated 23.5.2012.

23. In that view of the matter, the petitioners who have been transferred by impugned transfer orders, which order is not yet implemented due to pendency of these petitions, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are required to be considered in se