JUDGMENT - TULPULE R.D., J.:­ - This batch of three petitions is placed for hearing together as they involve common questions of law mostly and generally some aspects of facts. 2. The petitions have a history prior to the presentation of these petitions. A large number of transfers came to be made of primary school teachers working under the Zilla Parishads, Wardha and Bhandara. The teachers approached this Court complaining that those transfers have not been in accordance with the instructions and circular issued by the State Government relating to transfers of primary school teachers within the Zilla Parishad area and rule or guidelines which would govern such transfers. When the petitions came up before this Court, notice before admission was issued and this Court directed that these teachers should make a representation to the concerned Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishad against the order within a period of 5 days and the Zilla Parishad Officer then will consider those representations and then pass an order either “confirming or modifying the impugned orders of transfers”. 3. Accordingly the concerned petitioning teachers made such representation, but that all of them excepting a solitary instance in the case of one teacher from Wardha Zilla Parishad Area, all the representations were turned down and were rejected by a cyclostyled or stereotyped similar order. 4. The teachers from the Wardha Zilla Parishad who were members of an association called the Maharashtra Prathamic Shikshak Samiti, through its branch at Wardha, filed first of the petitions after rejected of their representation to this Court which is Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1981. That petition was admitted and rule was made returnable on 22nd of July, 1981. Subsequently two other petitions were filed by the teachers whose representations had been similarly rejected from the Bhandara Zilla Parishad area. They are: Writ Petition Nos. 1824 of 1981 filed on 17-7-1981 and Writ Petition No. 1845 of 1981 filed on 21-7-1981. 5. The Petition No. 1783 of 1981 was adjourned to 28th July, 1981 when it came up for hearing and then continued to be adjourned from time to time and was fixed for final hearing various dates, such as 31st July, 10th August, 24th August, 9th of September, 1981. The return appears to have been filed on 30th of July, 1981. The Petition No. 1783 of 1981 was adjourned to 28th July, 1981 when it came up for hearing and then continued to be adjourned from time to time and was fixed for final hearing various dates, such as 31st July, 10th August, 24th August, 9th of September, 1981. The return appears to have been filed on 30th of July, 1981. 5-A. After the written submissions were filed, it appears that a rejoinder by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners and affidavits were also filed on behalf of respondents. Neither the rejoinder by way of affidavit nor the affidavits in reply have been allowed to be taken on record and we have considered this case without the rejoinder affidavit as well as the affidavits in reply. We may say that they deal with individual cases on questions of fact. This petition would not be a proper forum to deal with them. 6. When this matter came up for hearing on 9th of September, 1981 Shri Chaudhari appearing for respondent asked for an adjournment which was granted to 22nd of September, 1981. It appears, however, that when this request was made, the petitioners' Counsel was not present and had not consented to such an adjournment. On a motion therefor by the petitioners, Counsel on the 10th September, 1981, the petition was directed to be placed for hearing on the 16th September, 1981. The petitioners' Counsel Shri Oka undertook to inform the respondents' Counsel of the changed date of hearing. Accordingly, the petition was listed for hearing on the 16th September, 1981, but actually could not reach hearing until today, namely, the 23rd September, 1981. On the 21st of September, 1981 we received a telegram from Shri Chaudhari Advocate saying “urgent work at Bombay. Unable till 25-9-1981. Kindly adjourn”. We did not agree to such an adjournment and we did not pass any order on the telegram and did not adjourn the matter. It reached hearing on the 23rd of September and when it reached, neither Shri Chaudhari nor anybody on behalf of the Zilla Parishad was present. Nevertheless, the learned Counsel for the petitioners was fair and took us through the return of the respondents and pointed out to us the content on which were advanced and are patent from the return. It reached hearing on the 23rd of September and when it reached, neither Shri Chaudhari nor anybody on behalf of the Zilla Parishad was present. Nevertheless, the learned Counsel for the petitioners was fair and took us through the return of the respondents and pointed out to us the content on which were advanced and are patent from the return. We have not, therefore been handicapped by the absence of Shri Choudhari in hearing of this petition. The other two petitions from the Bhandara District which were similarly filed were not admitted, but were directed to be placed for hearing along with this petition. We have admitted them, however, today and since Shri Munshi appearing for the respondents in both the petitions is present and has taken notice and has made his submissions in the matter, this common order governing all the three petitions is being passed. 7. The petitioners rely upon a circular issued by the State Government dated 6th of April, 1977 annexed as Annexure-A to the petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1981. Whenever any reference hereafter is made to any document or contention that pertains to Writ petition No. 1783 of 1981. Since these matters are common to the other petitions also, we have not made any separate reference to these petitions. It is common ground that the circular dated 6th April, 1977 was issued to all the Zilla Parishads. 8. The petitioners' contention briefly stated is that these circulars have the force of law. They are instructions and guidelines issued by the State Government for the Zilla Parishads to follow. Though they are not statutory orders they being executive orders and instruction have the same effect and are binding, both on the petitioners as well as on the Zilla Parishads. Both the Government as well as Zilla Parishads being governed by the principles or rules laid down, any rule made for its guidance or observation has to be strictly adhered to and not deviated by the concerned authorities entrusted with the administration and the functions of the Zilla Parishads. Such instructions which have the force of law and create a right also in the persons who are affected by those orders and they are entitled to have their enforcement and application in their cases. Such instructions which have the force of law and create a right also in the persons who are affected by those orders and they are entitled to have their enforcement and application in their cases. Where they are not applied and are deviated, there is an infringement of the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioners or such persons under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also further alleged that deviations from these circulars or instructions there is principally so far as teachers from Wardha are concerned is that those teachers have been transferred in violation of the instructions issued, in that either they are transferred before they are liable to be transferred in accordance with the guidelines, namely, before a period of 6 years has expired since their present posting, or though in the case of some of the petitioners 6 years have elapsed persons having been at the station for longer periods than they have been retained. The petitioners' complaint is that in case of such a contingency and as the guidelines lay down those of such teachers who have put in more than 6 years from amongst them, the teachers who have been at that station for the longest period shall be transferred first. In other words, in such cases the rule has to be first come first go. 9. It is the further averment and contention of the petitioners at least so far as Wardha District is concerned that their representations as directed by this Court were considered and rejected by a premeditated decision mechanically and without application of mind. It was pointed out in this connection that the orders are cyclostyled and stereotyped. They are dated 3rd of July, 1981 when the representations in the case of first batch of teachers were actually received either on that date or even later. That though actual date of posting appears to be later than 3rd, the very circumstance that cyclostyled letters rejecting these representations were kept ready and were cyclostyled on the 3rd of July, 1981 itself goes to show that the authority concerned has already taken decision even before the receipt of the representation, and even before considering the representation of each one of the teachers and the circumstances in his case either in favour or against, to reject the representation. It was contended that such a rejection must be on the face of it one which should disclose the reasons for rejection. It was even contended that this amounts to a quasi judicial order and must, therefore, make wise the person concerned as to reasons why his representation has been rejected. In these rejections which are non-speaking orders nothing is communicated to the petitioners-teachers as to why the request has not been considered. This is according to the petitioners non-compliance with the ordinary principles of natural justice. It is contended that a person has a right to know where he had a grievance to make why his representation is rejected and his grievance not resolved. The contentions so far as Bhandara District is concerned are much the same, except that in that case it does not appear to be contended that their representations were disposed of by a premeditated decision or even before the representations were received. 10. It will thus be seen that the complaint of the petitioning teachers is that all these mass transfers of a large number of teachers by a single order, of teachers who were not liable to be transferred in accordance with the guidelines not having completed a period of 6 years at the station, and in cases where the teachers have completed 6 years remaining those who had completed longer periods of even 10 years were unlawful and discriminatory. It may be mentioned that in the case of petitioners from the Bhandara District it was further alleged that their transfers were made in order to accommodate 75 teachers who requested for transfer and their transfers were effected. 11. In the return filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Wardha, though the fact that the circular having been issued is not disputed and also the further fact that the circular contains “guidelines and instructions” in paragraphs 1 to 7 thereof, it was contended that the circulars are “merely advisory and have no binding character or effect” upon the Zilla Parishad. The circulars, it is contended, are “in the form of instructions, directions and guidelines” and it is denied further that the respondents had “departed from the guidelines and instructions of the circular”. The circulars, it is contended, are “in the form of instructions, directions and guidelines” and it is denied further that the respondents had “departed from the guidelines and instructions of the circular”. It was also contended that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 and the orders rejecting the representations are not quasi judicial orders which would entail giving of a reasoned order like in the case of judgment. It was pointed out that the representations were prior to 3rd and were rejected before the 3rd of July. At the time, however, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha, thought of making out and keeping ready more such cyclostyled forms and, therefore, kept them ready, which he used in subsequent rejections of representations. He denied that there was a premeditated decision and what was done was a mere formal communication of rejection of representation. 12. We have, however, been unable to realise as to how in the same breath the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad says that circulars are not binding and are only directions or guidelines and instructions and also that he has in no way departed therefrom. This would suggest that even if he was not prepared to consider them as binding orders, they had such respect for him that he had to observe them and did observe them. As we shall presently point out they have much more than the force of mere recommendatory instructions or guidelines. We are unable to understand and know, how since each of the petitioners has made out a case individually in the petition as to his tenure in the post from where he is transferred the guidelines and instructions have been complied with. It is not said that in the case of these petitioners they had been at the station from where they are transferred for a period of 6 years, or that there were no other teachers at those stations who had been at that station for a period longer than the petitioning teachers. What is however contended in the return is that in respect of thee teachers who are transferred in a body, there have been complaints of various kinds. What is however contended in the return is that in respect of thee teachers who are transferred in a body, there have been complaints of various kinds. We have for the reasons which follow and in view of the order which we propose to pass in this case not gone, and do not propose to go in details into the so-called complaints against each of the petitioners or his case. Generally these complaints against the teachers relate to either the teachers alleged to have been taking part in village politics or that they are rude or irregular. In one case there was a complaint that the teacher had come to the school in a drunken state. What we wish to point out and emphasise is that the nature of the complaints except perhaps in the case of the teacher who had come to the school in a drunken state had nothing to do apparently with the work entrusted to them, namely, teaching. 13. The circular in question is a consolidated circular by which instructions issued from time to time by the Government have been put together and is in supersession of all previous circulars. It consists of various paragraphs and the relevant directions or guidelines are to be found in paragraph 2 and sub-paragraphs (1) to (9). Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 says that the transfers should be made generally between the month of April and May and the order communicated to the teachers by the end of May before the academic year begins. The fourth sub-paragraphs is important and says “The teacher should be transferred at the end of six years and in no case he should remain at the same place for more than seven years”. Sub-paragraph (v) says “normally a teacher should not be transferred before completing a period of six years at a particular place”. 14. The remaining part of paragraph 2 lays down as to how in cases of teachers having completed more than 6 years are found at a place transfer should be effected in that situation, and says that if such number of teachers is more, then transfer should be effected “in a phased manner say within 3 to 4 years to avoid any complications and complaints, rule being that the teachers “who have longer period at a place are transferred first”. 15. 15. It is in this very portion of the paragraph that the government makes it clear that it is not its intention that the transfer on administrative ground should not be effected until such teachers having a longer period at that particular station are first transferred. The circular also further pointed out that in a given year the number of transfers which should be effected should not exceed 8 percent, of which 6 percent should be transferred in the beginning of the year and the 2 percent can be left over for being transferred during the academic year in view of sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2, namely, transfers on urgent or special grounds. The instructions also contain factors which must be taken into account while effecting transfers and also provides for consultation with the office bearers of the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti. We may mention that under the heading “the factors to be considered”, the first paragraph thereof has undergone a change. But since the question here before us is not concerned with the aspect of the matter, we do not propose to refer to it. It is sub-paragraph (vi) thereof which is material. It reads: “(vi) While effecting transfers, factors like public complaints, opinion of Head of Departments and opinion of office bearers should be taken into consideration.” Presumably as the return suggests it is under this clause that the Chief Executive Officer purports to have acted in the case of transfers of teachers from the Wardha District before time or out of turn. 16. Paragraph 6 of the Circular is however important in our opinion. The scheme of the transfers is that the proposals for transfer should be originated at the level of the Block Development Officer in the Panchayat Samiti. To that end the Chief Executive Officers were advised “to delegate powers of effecting transfers” to the Block Development Officers. The circular also directed that the Chief Executive Officers “should not interfere with the transfer of primary teachers proposed or effected by the Block Development Officers at the Panchayat Samiti level”. However, the power of the Chief Executive Officer to alter and modify the proposals of the Block Development Officer was undoubtedly there. 17. In paragraph 6 of the Circular it has been further laid down that “the Commissioners, Chief Executive Officers and Block Development Officers” should see that “the above instructions are followed scrupulously”. However, the power of the Chief Executive Officer to alter and modify the proposals of the Block Development Officer was undoubtedly there. 17. In paragraph 6 of the Circular it has been further laid down that “the Commissioners, Chief Executive Officers and Block Development Officers” should see that “the above instructions are followed scrupulously”. The Government also wanted to exercise supervision and control over the actions of the Block Development Officers and the Chief Executive Officers as is clear from the further direction that the Chief Executive Offices should send an proforma check list to the Government through the Divisional Commissioner of the Division. 18. The first question which we have to consider in the present case is whether in view of the contentions raised, the circular can be said to be and said to have any binding force, or whether they are merely instructions and guidelines and are recommendatory. As we have pointed out the contention of the respondents seems to be that the Circular does not have a binding force. We are unable to think that this contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is sound either in law or on the facts to which we shall presently make a reference. It seems that the respondents have alternated their pleas into describing the circular at some stages as not binding and merely of a recommendatory character and at other places that the circular is of a binding character. 19. We would firstly advert to section 261 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samiti Act. That section so far as is relevant reads a follows: “261(1). The State Government may give to any Zilla Parishad general instructions as to matters of policy to be followed by the Zilla Parishad in respect of their duties or functions.” We are not concerned with the rest of the part of section excepting the last sentence which says there such instructions are issued “it shall be the duty of the Zilla Parishad to give effect to such instructions or directions”. Now these directions and instructions can be issued by the State Government with regard to duties and functions of the Zilla Parishad and relating to matters of policy. It is undoubtedly one of the functions and the duties of the Zilla Parishad to provide for educational facilities within the Parishad area. Now these directions and instructions can be issued by the State Government with regard to duties and functions of the Zilla Parishad and relating to matters of policy. It is undoubtedly one of the functions and the duties of the Zilla Parishad to provide for educational facilities within the Parishad area. The function connected with the exercise of that duty would be to provide for teachers and which pre-supposes appointments and transfers of teachers. Wherever, therefore, instructions relate to matters of policy regarding particularly in this case transfers and appointments of teachers, they partake the character of instructions which the State Government is entitled to issue statutorily under section 261(1) and the Zilla Parishad is duty bound to give effect to it. The circular, therefore, becomes a statutory circular which the Government had power to issue. It becomes a statutory duty of the Zilla Parishad to give effect to it. It would, therefore, be futile and not correct to say that the circular is not of a binding character and the directions therein are only for the purpose of guidance and instructions. 20. In this context we may refer to one of the documents produced along with the submissions of respondent No. 2 - Annexure 2 - a letter dated 24th April, 1981 addressed to the Chairman of the Education Committee, Zilla Parishad, Wardha. It appear that the Zilla Parishad, Wardha sought relaxation of rules of percentage of transfers as directed by the Circular in question. If the Circular was not binding and was only recommendatory we do not think that the Zilla Parishad would have sought any relaxation from the Government in regard to the directions of the circular. The wording of the letter also goes to show that the permission was given “as a special case relaxing the 8 percentage of yearly transfer of the primary school teachers”. However, what has been interpreted by the Zilla Parishad seems to be quite different. It says “According to the letter 30 cases of mutual transfers, 120 transfers on request and a total of 180 (presumably a mistake for 150) were permitted. According to the return of the Zilla Parishad, there are 2604 teachers of whom they could transfer only 1/6th at the end of the year. That would mean a transfer of about 150 teachers. The total transfers made were however 312. According to the return of the Zilla Parishad, there are 2604 teachers of whom they could transfer only 1/6th at the end of the year. That would mean a transfer of about 150 teachers. The total transfers made were however 312. On the basis of the letter referred to above, as we pointed out these 312 transfers would be in excess of the percentage of transfers permitted, they were permitted on ground of mutual transfers or transfers on request. None of the petitioners have been transferred on request. The conduct of the respondents, therefore, would clearly go to show that they understood the circular to be binding and had to obtain relaxation from the Government and make out a case therefor. If the circular, therefore, is binding, it is binding in all respects and it would not be permissible to treat it as binding in respect of others. That exactly is the complaint by the petitioners and as we shall presently point out, what has happened in the present case. 21. If the circular is held to be binding, which in view of what we have indicated it is, then it seems to us that the transfers of teachers could only be in accordance with the circular. It is in this context that certain actions of the respondents become assailable in certain parts and the contentions of the petitioners become relevant. Clause (iv) of paragraph 2 of the Circular says that a teacher should be transferred at the end of six years and in no case he should remain at the same placed for more than seven years. Practically in the case of every petitioner it is pointed out that teachers who have remained at the placed from where the petitioning teacher are transferred, there are persons who have put in 7 years and more and in some cases almost extending upto 20 years. The only ground which has been given by the respondents in their detailed reply in respect of such teachers whose cases have been pointed out by the petitioners as having been retained is, that there were no complaints against them. It is needless to point out that absence of complaints in respect of such teachers who have remained at the station for a period of more than 67 years is not excused nor does the operation of the circular waived in their case. It is needless to point out that absence of complaints in respect of such teachers who have remained at the station for a period of more than 67 years is not excused nor does the operation of the circular waived in their case. Such teachers were liable to be transferred in preference to teachers who had put in less number of years, as indicated in the latter part of the said paragraph to which we have already made a reference. 22. It is true as we have pointed out earlier that sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph 2 directs that normally a teacher should not be transferred before completing a period of six years at a particular place, and as pointed out above, a teacher may by his behaviour or on account of other reasons incur a transfer even before the completion of his tenure of 6 years. But that is an exception. The normal rule is that a teacher is entitled to remain on his post for a period of 6 years. Where a course other than the normal course is permitted or enjoined by statutory direction occurs, then it seems to us that it is necessary to explain and justify such a departure from the normal course. That does not, however, mean that a quasi judicial order has to be passed as is submitted for the respondents, but it does indicate at least a modicum of enquiry leading to the satisfaction of the concerned officer that the normal rule has to be departed. Even that modicum of enquiry would contemplate the person against whom, action which is not the normal action as intended to be taken is given an opportunity of explanation and meet what is complained of against him. The object obviously is that he should be spared a departure from the normal rule and to vindicate himself and show that what is complained of against him and what is contended is not true. 23. We have in this connection a very curious stand taken by the respondents and one difficult to understand. In paragraph 10 of the return it is stated that “the instructions and guidelines refer to the complaints to be taken into consideration while effecting the transfers of the teachers and the said instructions and guidelines do not any where contemplate anything about the enquiry”. In paragraph 10 of the return it is stated that “the instructions and guidelines refer to the complaints to be taken into consideration while effecting the transfers of the teachers and the said instructions and guidelines do not any where contemplate anything about the enquiry”. The contention therefore seems to be that since the instructions do refer to complaints which is one of the factors to be considered in effecting a transfer, the mere fact of a complaint is enough to depart from the normal rule. We do not think that is what is implied or intended. It must not be forgotten that these instructions issued under section 261 relate to matters of policy. The administrator has to apply, and has to follow the normal rules in deciding matters which affect persons, and where a departure form the binding behaviour or rule is contemplated. Instructions, therefore, to transfer only upon holding a full-fledged enquiry, it would be wrong to expect, would be contained in such a circular. The circular has to be read not independently of the normal rules of business and administration, but as guiding the powers of administration and business which require that no person shall be meted out the treatment which he does not deserve, or which under the rules is not liable to be meted unless he is given an opportunity to know, for what reasons he is being singled out for a different treatment and to enable him to meet the complaints against him. 24. This supposition and view seem to have permeated, both in the matter of rejection of the reports as well as consideration of each of the cases of the petitioners. In a detailed reply to the contentions raised by each of the petitioners with regard to their individual cases, the respondents have set out the nature of the complaints and in some cases the persons who have made the complaints. But rarely has it been said that these complaints have been investigated, the explanation of the persons concerned sought and it was only a preliminary enquiry was held in those cases and the officer concerned was satisfied about the truth, that it was decided that the person should be transferred. No such averment or statement is made in that detailed reply. No such averment or statement is made in that detailed reply. On the other hand, in the case of each of the petitioners, it is contended that they were unaware of the complaints against them. That those complaints are not true and in some cases it is even alleged that they have been procured and engineered. 25. We do not propose to go into the details of these complaints as we think that the respondents are not right in saying that the circular does not contemplate any enquiry into the complaints. No sooner therefore, the respondents seem to think, that a complaint is received they are entitled to transfer a teacher even if his tenure is less than 6 years. Per contra, the respondents seem to think where no complaints are received a teacher cannot be transferred, notwithstanding that he has been at the station for a period more than 10 years and even upto 20 years. We have gone through most of the complaints of the petitioners and the replies containing the complaints against the petitioners. We are not impressed that in every case they are of such a serious nature as to indicate a departure from a normal rule of tenure for a period of 6 years. It may be that in some cases transfers were necessary and may also be desirable, even among the petitioners. But it is clear to us that whatever may have been the nature of complaints, whatever may have been their frequency and type, it does not appear that there has been an enquiry into these complaints, even for the purpose of satisfying that the departure from the normal rule of tenure for a period of 6 years ought to be followed, and the person concerned transferred from the place notwithstanding the instructions to the contrary in the circular. Similarly absence of complaints is no ground for continuing the teacher beyond the period of 7 years in terms of the circular at the same station. It seems to us from some portions of the return, when considered in the light of the contentions of the petitioners that the very grounds which are found and held against a teacher are considered good in respect of others and a justification for not transferring them. 26. It seems to us from some portions of the return, when considered in the light of the contentions of the petitioners that the very grounds which are found and held against a teacher are considered good in respect of others and a justification for not transferring them. 26. We may only point out one instance where it is said that some of the petitioning teaches do not stay at their head quarters and attend to the school from an adjoining village. On the other hand in the case of one of the persons named in the petition as not having been transferred even though for a period of 7 years has elapsed, it is stated that he can come from Wardha to that place conveniently every day. This only indicates that uniformity in the application of standards has not been followed, notwithstanding the clear cut instructions and guidance which is given by the circular. Since the destinies of a large number of teachers rest in the hand of the respondents, they must not merely be evenly and fairly dealt with, but that they must also be made to feel that they have been dealt with fairly and properly. Equality of treatment and fairness as well as justice to them in their grievances and complaints made against them must not in reality be made but must also be seemed to be made. That does not seem to have been done. Indeed, if we may say so, the respondents feel and assert that it is not necessary to do so, from the stand which they have taken of no enquiry being contemplated. We are unable to subscribe to this view as being a correct interpretation either of the circular or of the norms of administration and business. 27. That takes us to the question of the order which ought to be passed in the present case. A statement seems to have been filed in this Court on the 10th August, 1981 which led to the vacating of interim order of stay of the orders of transfer. Consequently, there is no stay and the transfers must have been effected. The statement indeed goes to show that in a number of cases the persons transferred have actually joined. A large majority of them appear to have joined at their new place of posting in June. Consequently, there is no stay and the transfers must have been effected. The statement indeed goes to show that in a number of cases the persons transferred have actually joined. A large majority of them appear to have joined at their new place of posting in June. In view of our finding that the instructions in the circular dated 6-4-1977 are of a binding character, and that is the normal rule which must be followed and departure justified only in the circumstances indicated by us in our order above, we think that the proper order in the circumstances to pass would be as indicated below. 28. Amongst the petitioners, we find that petitioners 2, 3, 6 to 9, 11, 15, 27, 41, 42 and 45 have completed more than 6 years when they were transferred. Apart from the question of the complaints they are liable to be transferred. We are aware that it is the contention of the petitioners that they have been discriminated against in that the persons who have been at those places longer than them and longer than 6 or 7 years have been retained and they have been transferred. In view, however, of what we have said above that the Circular requires that no teacher should be retained beyond the period of 7 years and those who are retained should be transferred in a phased programme, the respondent Chief Executive Officer will see his way to implement the circular in all its earnestness. So far as these petitioners, therefore, are concerned, they are not entitled to any relief. 29. In the case of petitioners Nos. 12 and 13 they have been at the places from where they have been transferred for less than 6 years, but for more than 4 years. If circumstances warranting the departure from the normal rule appear as existing in their case, even on a prima facie satisfaction or enquiry by the concerned authority, they may also be transferred. 30. With regard to petitioners 4, 5, 10 and 14,16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, 21 to 25, 28, 29, 31, 34, 43 and 44 they have put in less than 4 years of service. 30. With regard to petitioners 4, 5, 10 and 14,16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, 21 to 25, 28, 29, 31, 34, 43 and 44 they have put in less than 4 years of service. We think that in the light of what we have stated above if their transfer is sought to be made on the ground of complaints against them, as we have indicated there must be an enquiry into those complaints at least for the purposes of finding out whether there is justification for their transfer. That would necessarily indicate and involve an opportunity to the petitioners to show that the complaints against them are either unjustified or are not correct or are not true and are not bona fide. It is only upon the result of such enquiry that their transfers would be justified. In case the new incumbents have not joined at these places, these 21 petitioners should be allowed to continue at those places pending investigation indicated by us above. 31. We, therefore, allow the petition, quash the orders of their transfer, direct investigation and observance by the respondents of the guidelines in the circular in the light of what we have stated above. Mr. Chahande appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 1824 and 1845 of 1981 draws our attention to a threatened action against them for approaching this Court under Article 226 for vindication of their legal right. We trust that the respondents in those petitions, namely, the Zilla Parishad, Bhadara in its wisdom will withdraw such notices. We trust that the respondents will pass appropriate orders on the result of those investigations. We also direct that the copy of this judgment should be sent to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division and to the State Government. There will be no order as to costs of these petitions. The orders which we have passed above, shall also apply in the case of teachers from the Bhandara Zilla Parishad area and we hope that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara would also carry them out in the light of our judgment, directions and the circular above. Petition allowed. -----