Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) BOTH these Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th February, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6777 of 2012, whereby the petition preferred by these appellants has been dismissed and, therefore, original petitioners have preferred two separate Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that these appellants were appointed in the year 2005 as Cluster Resource Persons under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and they were appointed more in number than the available post and, therefore, they were transferred/adjusted, as alleged by the respondent -State, but, the same is not true because appellants were appointed in the year 2005 whereas additional persons were appointed in the year 2006 -07 and, therefore, those persons should be transferred to one district to another and not these appellants. This is the major contention raised by counsel for the appellants which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6777 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set -aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents -State submitted that these appellants were appointed as Cluster Resource Persons on contractual basis under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. In fact, they were not regular employee of the respondent -State. There is a scheme floated and as per the said Scheme (Annexure 2 to the memo of this LPA) there are fixed and definite number of Cluster Resource Persons, but, more persons were appointed on the said post in few districts and, therefore, either they should be adjusted by transfer or the contractual appointment should be brought to an end. The State has chosen lessor evil namely adjustment/transfer of these appellants from district Bokaro to district Giridih. The distance between these two districts is only forty kilometer. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by these appellants. In fact, these appellants are working on contractual basis for a lump sum/fixed emolument and as they were excess in number they have been adjusted. Hence, these Letters Patent Appeals may not be entertained by this Court.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reason to entertain these Letters Patent Appeals mainly for the following facts and reasons: a) These appellants in both Letters Patent Appeals were the original petitioners who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 6777 of 2012 challenging the order passed by the respondent -State dated 25th September, 2012 which is an order of transfer/adjustment of these appellants from district Bokaro to district Giridih which is at a distance of approximately 40 K.M. b) It further appears from the facts of the case that these appellants were appointed as Cluster Resource persons on contract basis for a fixed and lump sum emolument per month under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. c) Looking to letter dated 26.6.2012 which is annexed as Annexure 7 to the memo of these Letters Patent Appeals, it appears that in certain districts Cluster Resource Persons were appointed excessively, one of such district is district Bokaro where theses appellants were appointed as Cluster Resource Persons. d) As there were excessive appointment hence they were adjusted/transferred by respondent -State instead of cancelling the contractual appointments. Either they are to be adjusted in an adjacent district or their services are to be brought to an end. Out of these two options lesser harmful option has been chosen by the respondent -state and these appellants were adjusted from district Bokaro to district Giridih. Headquarters of these two districts are at a distance of approximately 40 k.m. e) It appears from the facts of the case that these appellants are not ready to go from district Bokaro to district Giridih. State has only two options as stated hereinabove. Only choice left out with these appellants is to go out of the job if they are not ready to go in district Giridih. Even otherwise also they are contractual appointees. These appellants are not regular employee of the respondent -State. Moreover, they are working under special scheme namely Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. These appellants have no statutory right to remain in one district only. State of Jharkhand has all power, jurisdiction and authority to adjust these appellants who are Cluster Resource Persons - who were appointed under a contract for a lump sum emolument per month, in another district, especially when in one district there is excessive appointment of Cluster Resource Persons. f) Whenever there is adjustment from one district to another, there is bound to be some hardships, but, looking to the major hardship of going out of the job, adjustment to nearby district is a lessor hardship which has been opted by the State in welfare of these appellants. g) The aforesaid aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by these appellants. h) Counsel for the appellants submits that they were appointees of the year 2005 and others were appointed in the year 2006 -07 and, therefore, those who were lastly appointed should go out of the district first. The aforesaid contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the following reasons: a) Contractual employees - Cluster Resource Persons -appellants are to be adjusted looking to the administrative exigency of the respondent -State. b) It is not obligatory on the part of the State to adjust lastly appointed persons, first. Such principle may be namely viz. "Last come, first go" is normally being followed in Industrial Disputes Act for retrenchment or for removal of the employees/workmen who are surpluses. This principle is not applicable for those who are appointed on contract basis under a very Scheme floated by the Central Government namely Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. c) When there are appointment of Cluster Resource Person made in excessive, the State can always transfer/adjust few of them or any of them. The State is not bound to follow aforesaid principle i.e. "last come first go". What should be the policy of adjustment/transfer is always left open for the State. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for this adjustment. The State must allowed to have "free movement in joints". Such a relaxation ought to be given to the State. Appellants cannot say what should be the better policy of the State. The State authority can evolve their own policy for adjustment or transfer.;