- (1.) The petitioners' grievance is that they were appointed as ETT Teachers in the Zila Parishad and are now absorbed in the Education Department even though a grievance has been made: that a pick and choose policy has been followed but the issue of seniority has been raised. The petitioners were appointed in the district cadre which prohibited a transfer outside the district except in the case of matrimony necessitating facilitation of getting the married couple posted at one station. In this regard an option was to be exercised by the affected employee and in terms of Annexure P-5, the relevant part of which is extracted herebelow, the seniority was to be protected: "A) Regarding change of Cadre The government employee who is having District cadre shall have opportunity to give option for change of cadre in the same district during his whole service where, his wife/her husband is in service and through this service is government or private. Such employees giving option would not suffer from his/her seniority."
(2.) The petitioners' grievance now is that although they were all permitted such a transfer, yet they were placed at the tail end of the seniority list and since now the absorption in government cadre has begun on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, they stand to be prejudiced on account of this seniority which is adverse to them and assigned without adhering to the aforesaid recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission enabling the protection of seniority to such employees. The respondents as a measure of justification would refer to the affidavits submitted by the petitioners thus forgoing their seniority to avail the benefit of such a transfer which was otherwise prohibited. Apart from this, an objection has been raised by the respondents that all the affected persons have not been impleaded as party respondents and this would prejudice their claims in case the petition is accepted.
(3.) On due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the policy of enabling an incumbent to exercise his or her option to enable him or her to stay at one station with his or her spouse was a noble cause espoused by the respondent-State but by forgoing seniority the benefit given stands to be colored. The seniority would form one of the legitimate concern of an employee and if in a situation as the one in which the petitioners are placed would offer a predicament of either slaying separately from the spouse and protect seniority, or together, with a loss of seniority, then the action of the State in depriving the employees of the benefit of seniority in this exceptional circumstance would amount to exploitation of such a predicament. Therefore, such a action cannot be sustained.;