NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have challenged the policy decision taken by the Government on dated 28. 7. 2000 whereby transfer orders issued to the Teachers, who have not completed five years of service upto 31. 7. 2000 at the initial place of posting, stood cancelled.
(2.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the policy decision taken by the Government is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory inasmuch as this policy decision is made applicable only to particular districts in the State of Rajasthan. It is also submitted that once the order of transfer has been issued it shall be presumed that the authorities have reached to the conclusion that the transfer of the Teachers is in public interest and, therefore, the order of transfer cannot be rescinded. Sub-Section (8-A) of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act of 1994') authorises the State Government to transfer any member of the service from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti, whether within the same district or outside it, from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad, or from a Panchayat Samiti to a Zila Parishad, or from a Zila Parished to a Panchayat Samiti, and may also stay the operation of or cancel, any order of transfer made under sub-section (8) of the rules made thereunder. Rule 290 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules of 1994') is to the same effect. Thus, it is apparent from sub-section (8-A) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 290 of the Rules of 1996 that the State Government has power to issue transfer orders as well as to cancel the same. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government has no power to cancel order of transfer once issued, is without any substance in view of the aforesaid provisions. The policy of not transferring the teachers for five years, cannot be said to be an arbitrary. It is well known fact that transfer of an employee from one place to another implies financial implications and is a burden on the public exchequer but at the same time for effective and efficient management of educational facilities provided by the Government it is necessary to transfer a teacher from one place to another. To balance both, if the Government introduces a policy to impose a ban on transfer for a particular year, how can it be called an unjustified action or an action arbitrary in nature. There is no absolute ban on transfer imposed by the Government. The Government has only put up a ban for a particular year and that will also be subject to exceptions as the Government will have a power to make exception to the general Rule in the given circumstances for the administrative reasons. It is governmental function to see that the educational institutions are run effectively and efficiently and if for the said purpose transfer orders are being cancelled de hors the general policy of transfer it would not be held to be illegal. It is well settled that in the matter of policy the Government is final authority. The court would not interfere with the policy matters of the Government unless and until it is established by placing positive material that the policy so led by the Government is arbitrary, unjust and not in accordance with the norms laid down under the Constitution. The Court will not generally set at knot the policy laid down by the Government. As regards the application of the policy to particular Districts, in particular manner the reason is obvious that the policy may have to be applied by stages in different areas even and in different institutions by reason of administrative compulsions such decision by the government cannot be considered as either arbitrary or capricious or unconstitutional. In my considered opinion the policy decision taken by the Government is just, fair and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. . ;