Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the action of the respondents to post the petitioner at Barmer district be set aside and the respondents be directed to post the petitioner as School Lecturer (English) in Jaipur district.
(2.) This court in the case of Sita Ram Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6162/2016, decided on 22.03.2017, considered the affect of circulars issued by the State Government whereby posting is to be given to a selected candidate in home district so far possible in consonance with the merit list prepared. The observation made by this court in the case of Sita Ram Meena & Ors. reads as under:- "State of Rajasthan is a large State. It consists of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP), desert and rural areas. It is common knowledge that nobody intend to serve in desert and tribal area as the facilities and infrastructure there is less. Consequently, less meritorious persons only go to the tribal, rural and desert area. Deprived people require meritorious persons to serve them. By giving benefit to the petitioners, residents of tribal, desert or rural area cannot be discriminated. Individual good has to make way for a larger good. A government servant is called public servant. He has to serve the public at large. It is required to be noted that Circular Annexures-6 and 7 are only directory in nature and not mandatory. The court of law cannot issue a direction to the respondents to comply Circular Annexures-6 and 7 in matters of transfer. The said circulars were also relied before this Court in the case of Chhotu Ram Saini vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., SBCWP No.15272/2016, decided on 1.12.2016, wherein this Court had observed as under:- "A situation has arisen that no Teacher is ready and willing to go and perform his duties in a Village. Every Teacher desire that he should be posted at Jaipur at the State Capital or at the Divisional Headquarter or at District Headquarter and, if not possible, at Tehsil Headquarter. This Court feel that the Villagers also require attention and education. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Pradhan Singh Kshettra Samiti and Others, 1995 Supp2 SCC 305, having defined the Village held that the "units of selfgovernance at the lower level being interrelated and integrated with those at the higher levels as parts of the whole scheme of administration and development in the State, have to respond to and fall in line with the growth in the size and operation of the units at the higher level to form a coordinated democratic polity and administrative machinery. The concept of grassroot or lowest level administration must, therefore, necessarily change with the advance and progress at other levels. The governing units at all levels have to fit in in a pattern, and a scheme for administration both for law and order and economic growth". Supreme Court further said that "Hence there cannot be any immutable social, political, economic or organisational concept of village as a self governing unit. In a developing country like ours, where the population is growing fast, where the society is in ferment on all fronts, where divisive forces of all kinds abound, where the vast majority of population is illiterate and is the victim of ignorance, superstition, blind-faith, biases and prejudices, and is shackled by tradition, and irrational customs and practices, there is an urgent need to evolve means to unite and integrate the society, to expose the populace to larger and higher goals, to imbibe in them the wider perspectives and to forge a socially cohesive front for breaking the barriers of race, caste, class, religion and region rather than to pander to the age-old, self-centered physical and mental barriers ." It is essential that the Villagers should receive utmost attention of the State Government so far imparting of education is concerned. Villagers as said by the Supreme Court are infested with superstition. Maximum illiteracy and superstition prevail in the Villages. Mahatma, the Father of the Nation has said "The future of India lies in its Villages". Mahatma said further "Education should be so revolutionized as to answer the wants of the poorest Villagers". Mahatma further said 'Today cities dominate and drain Villages so that are crumbling to ruin. There is no doubt that the State Government has been granting utmost attention to the Villages at the grossroot. However, due to various factors be it judgments of the Court or otherwise, State Government had to evolve a policy that at time of posting merit shall be taken as criteria and the teacher shall be given an option to choose his place of posting. As result of above policy, a meritorious candidate opts for State Capital, Divisional Headquarter or District Headquarter resultantly one who is lowest in merit is posted at Village to teach students. Some teachers in their entire career are never posted at Village. In a Town especially in Jaipur, there are number of Public School and Private Schools are available, where students belonging to rich and affluent strata of Society get admission. Poor, ignorant illiterate students living in Village require that they are moulded and reared by the teachers who are competent and meritorious. In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp2 SCC 659, the Supreme Court held that transfer is part and parcel of Government Service. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. , the Supreme Court held as under:- "4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in (4 of 5 ) [CW15272/2016] violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-today transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders." In the case of Chhotu Ram Saini , this Court requested the State Government to formulate policy whereby services of meritorious persons are also available to the villages or the persons residing in rural, tribal and desert. So far the present petition is concerned, in view of the observations made by Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. reproduced above in the case of Chhotu Ram Meena , this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners as the State Government due to administrative exigencies can post/transfer a government employee at any place. In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. , it has been specifically noted by the Supreme Court that even if transfer order is based on violation of any administrative circular except on the ground of mala fide or violation of statutory rule, the court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed by the State Government qua the posting and transfer. In the present case, posting orders were issued on 17.10.2014, 28.10.2014, 12.6.2015, 14.6.2015, 30.6.2015, 15.6.2015 and 20.6.2015 vide Annexures-13 to 19. After more than two years of the issuance of the posting orders this Court merely on the strength executive instructions, cannot put the working of the government department into jeopardy, especially when the observations made by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. are against the petitioners."
(3.) For the reasons stated in the case of Sita Ram Meena & Ors. , relying upon the observation made by Supreme Court in case of Shilpi Bose & Ors. , this court shall refrain to cause interference in the matter of posting of the petitioner.;