BY COURT In all these four writ applications the petitioners have prayed for quashing certain Rules dated 11.11.1975 as contained in Annexure 2 framed by the State of Bihar under the proviso (2) Articles 309 of the Constitution, vide notification No. 52749 and several orders, Annexure 3 series, where by a large number of teachers of different Government Basic Middle Schools have been transferred from one place to another. Since the point raised in the cases is same, they were directed to be heard together. They have been referred to division Bench for hearing, by a learned single Judge and are being now disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Before the Rules dated 11th November, 1975, as contained in Anneaure-2 and referred to above, were framed, there was one single cadre of the teachers of the Basic Schools for the entire State. By the Rules, seven different cadres were created for the different divisions detailed in Rule 4 Rule 7 laid down that ordinarily the teacher would be transferred within the same cadre but If a teacher is transferred to another cadre in that event his seniority in that cadre would be fixed with reference to the date of his joining that division. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7, Which has been the subject matter of interpretation in there cases, states that before the Rules came into operation many teachers had been transferred from one division to another and as a result, after the formation of seven cadres by the Rules, they are now working in cadres different than those in which they were appointed originally, and that they would be retransferred to their original place, when vacancy occurs. In purported exercise of the power under this sub-Rule, enmasse transfers of the petitioners have been ordered by Annexure-3 aeries which the petitioner are challenging. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. 1264 of 1976 that the transfer order are not in according with the Rules, Annexure-2, and are, therefore, fit to be quashed. The learned Counsel argued that the transfer contemplated under sub-Rule (4) of the Rule 7 is dependent on a post falling vacant ordinary course and not by passing orders for the purpose of creating a large number of vacancies by transferring the existing incumbents. The learned Counsel argued that the transfer contemplated under sub-Rule (4) of the Rule 7 is dependent on a post falling vacant ordinary course and not by passing orders for the purpose of creating a large number of vacancies by transferring the existing incumbents. A look to the transfer orders indicates that the petitioners have been transferred enmasse without finding out as to whether any vacancy exists or not in the cadre to which they are being transferred. The list does not indicate the schools where they have to join after these transfer order are implemented. The first and second columns mentioned the serial numbers and the names of the transferred teacher and the only other remaining, column is for the names of the schools where they are at present employed. The criticism appears to be correct that they are not being transferred to specific posts. What is attempted to be done by the impugned orders is to transfer the petitioners to other cadres without an enquiry about the available vacant posts and without posting them to such posts. The learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondents, contended that it was the duty of the petitioners to have shown that actually there were no vacancies existing at all in the cadres and it was not essential for the authorities concerned to have indicated the specific posts to which the petitioners respectively have to go, as at the moment the attempt is, merely, to transfer the petitioners to their original cadres. He has, further, defended the impugned orders on the ground that before the Rules came into effect, all the petitioners, being on the same single cadre for the entire State of Bihar, could have been transferred from any place to any place and, therefore such orders can be passed even after the now Rules have come into effect. We are not in a position to accept these contentions. The purpose of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 appears to provide for transfer of teacher who had earlier been transferred to different cadres within the meaning of the new Rules as and when vacancy occurs in their original cadres, from time to time, in the usual course. It does not empower authorities to order on masse transfers of such teachers. The purpose of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 appears to provide for transfer of teacher who had earlier been transferred to different cadres within the meaning of the new Rules as and when vacancy occurs in their original cadres, from time to time, in the usual course. It does not empower authorities to order on masse transfers of such teachers. The fact that the petitioners could have been transferred earlier from one division to another, before the coming into force of the present Rules is of no avail now. By the Rules different cadres have been created and a teacher, who was employed in a particular cadre, on the date on which the Rules were enforced, became a member of that cadre and cannot be ordinarily transferred in view of the provisions of Sub-Rule (1). Sub-rule (2) has no application since the petitioners are not desirous of being transferred. In view of the interpretation that we are putting on Sub-rule (4), there does not appear to be any ground to support the impugned transfer orders which must, therefore, be quashed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that as these writ applications are being allowed by quashing the transfer orders they do not press the other relief for declaring the Rules as ultra vires. We are, therefore, not called upon to express any opinion on that question. 5. In the result, the transfer orders, as contained in Annexure-3 series in C.W.J.C. 1264, 1458 and 1724 of 1976 and the impugned, orders in Annexure 1, 3 and 4 in C.W.J.C. 1530 of 1976 are quashed. The writ applications are, accordingly, allowed but without costs. Applications allowed.