JUDGMENT 1. -"Durante bene Desito"? (during desire). Whether reincarnation of "Durante bene Placito"? (during pleasure). 2. The doctrine of His Majesty's Pleasure whether replaced by Doctrine of Minister or Legislator's desire?2A. Is it old wine in new bottle? "During desire" in matter of mass transfers of teachers in Rajasthan in 1980 is under fire in these 13 writ petitions, where IIIrd grade teachers have challenged their transfers outside their districts on manyfold grounds including serious allegation of mala fides against the Education Ministry and some of the members of the Legislative Assembly. 3. The preamble of the Constitution proclaims "equal opportunity" to citizens, followed by Part III of the Constitution having Article 14, 15 and 16 smashes the doctrine of the King's pleasure and establishes rule of law. The violations, breach, flagrant disregard and clear contravention of rule of law have resulted in manyfold challenges by the citizens and this court as `watch-dog' of the Constitution and the rights of citizens, has never hesitated in striking it down, as discussed by me in the recent decision of Dr. (Mrs.) Rukmani Vaish v. State of Rajasthan decided on 31-7-81 : (1982 Lab I C NOC 11). 4. A teacher has got very important place in the society, so far as theoritical morales are concerned, but economically he happens to be almost last in the ladder and then again the class III teacher is one of the miserable species of civil services as mostly his economic plight goes uncared. 5. In the auditorium of services, he occupies the last row and there also he is pushed back in a dark corner, with a pathetic skeleton and woeful tale, not to be heard. After three decades of functioning of Indian Constitution, he is nearest to poverty line. Sky above and earth below, he has hardly any roof to shelter. Perspiration without inspiration is his lot. Sandwitched in problems of Bread and Butter, the State expects from him to produce national architects of tomorrow. 6. The present bunch of cases provides a typical woeful tale of the third grade teachers who have been allegedly thrown from pole to pillar and pillar to pole on account of mass transfers of more than 20,000 teachers in Rajasthan, according to the allegation of the petitioners. 6. The present bunch of cases provides a typical woeful tale of the third grade teachers who have been allegedly thrown from pole to pillar and pillar to pole on account of mass transfers of more than 20,000 teachers in Rajasthan, according to the allegation of the petitioners. The fact that the respondents administrative instructions, the guidelines, the principles of transfer policy laid down from time to time always insisted that this unfortunate lot of civil service, which is lowest in the ladder and economically depressed and suppressed, should not be transferred outside the districts where they have been appointed originally and are functioning. But all those guidelines, policy decisions and Government instructions were to remain on papers with mass disobedience and violation of them by the Education Ministry of Rajasthan, is a matter which has become patent in this bunch of cases, if at all, it was latent. 7. With the above preamble, now let me mention the traditional facts of the present cases. 8. Dwarkesh Sharma is a teacher Grade-III having 16 years of service at his credit and drawing a salary of Rs. 570/- p.m. He happens to be a teacher in Rampura, District Sikar, Rajasthan. The petitioner's case is that the guidelines have been formed by the Government for the transfer of teachers in Rajasthan, the latest of them being guidelines of 20-1-79 in regard to the transfer of Grade-III teachers. These guidelines normally regulate the transfer of teachers from one district to another, but in case of teachers themselves seeking transfers, some exceptions have been provided on the basis of procedure mentioned therein. But, in that case also, the upper limit has been kept as 10% of the vacant posts. These guidelines have been published in the Official Magazine (Shivra) of the Education Department on 23-3-79 and 20-6-79. 9. The petitioner's case is that the State Government for purely political reasons and other grounds made wholesale transfers of teachers on unprecedented scale and this number exceeded more than 20,000. The precise allegations made by the petitioners are contained in para 9. Still more serious allegations have been made in para 10 in which it has been alleged that the transfers have been made at the instance of M.L.As. and M.Ps. and other workers of the ruling party. The precise allegations made by the petitioners are contained in para 9. Still more serious allegations have been made in para 10 in which it has been alleged that the transfers have been made at the instance of M.L.As. and M.Ps. and other workers of the ruling party. The allegation of Dwarkesh Sharma is that he was transferred to Banswara as per Annexure-3 more than 300 miles away from his district and that has been done in compliance with the Government Order. 10. The petitioners grievance is that apart from the transfer being mala fide, it is against the guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan, and further it would deprive him of the- equal opportunity in the matter of service conditions and further promotions, because the seniority of teachers Grade-III is maintained district wise and the promotions also are given district wise. He has further prayed that this transfer should be quashed, both being against the guidelines of the State Government and being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. The petitioners in order to prove mala fides have placed before this Court Annexure-2, newspaper cutting of Rajasthan Patrika dated 15-9-80 having the caption "Rajya Me Tavadle Rajniti Se Prerit", Dainik Nav Jyoti (Annexure-2A) having the caption "Shikshkon Ke Tavadlon Ko Lekar Bhari Shor Sharaba", and Rashtradoot (Annexure-2B) "Shikshakon Ke Sthanantaran Ko Lekar Vidhan Sabha Me Hangama". in which mass transfers of teachers in Rajasthan was the subject matter of acromonious and stormy debate, pandemonium and unruly scenes in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. It was mentioned inter alia in these items that the mass transfers of 20,000 teachers were motivated by political considerations and allegations which were rebutted and refuted by the ruling party, but incidentally justified on the ground that this was done to set at naught the earlier mass transfers of teachers done by the earlier regime on account of political consideration. 12. However, I would like to avoid the political over-tones of controversy in this judgment, because I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to go into that and adjudicate the allegations of mala fides when the Government itself has decided to set at naught all the transfers of teachers, Grade-III, which have been done outside their districts as per the statement given at bar by the Government Advocate Mr. M. I. Khan and Addl. Government Advocate, Mr. M. I. Khan and Addl. Government Advocate, Mr. Mathur, and which is supported by the reply sent by the Deputy District Education Officer through Assistant Government Advocate vide letter of August, 11, 1981, a copy of which is placed on record. 13. This letter was received in reply to the various questions posed by this Court on 10-8-81, which read as under:- Q. 1 Whether there is any State wise Seniority List of teachers Grade IV in Rajasthan? Ans. There is no State wise Seniority List of III-Grade teachers. Their seniority list is Revenue District wise. Q. 2 Whether the promotions from teachers Grade III to teaches grade II are made on the basis of State wise seniority or District wise seniority? Ans. The promotions of teachers from Grade III to Grade II are made on the basis of District wise Seniority. Q. 3 Whether after the impugned order was passed, the Government itself has decided not to transfer teachers Grade III outside the district, and if so, why these impugned orders have not been withdrawn so far? Ans. In the new transfer policy, Grade III teachers are not to be transferred outside their respective districts. The teachers who were transferred in 1980-81, on Government orders will be absorbed in their respective districts whenever and wherever vacancies exist. Q. 4 Whether the Government wants to withdraw the impugned orders? Ans. Transferred teachers under reference will be brought back whenever vacancies occur in their old districts. 14. Answers to questions 3 and 4 make it clear that teachers Grade-III are not to be transferred outside their respective districts and the teachers, who were transferred in 1980-81 on Government orders will be absorbed in the respective districts whenever and wherever vacancies exist. In view of the above, the broader compass of the controversy about the `doctrine of desire' in matters of transfer of teachers, which have sometimes reminded the doctrine of pleasure of the King, need not be discussed for deciding this controversy under the Indian Constitution and the rule of law. 15. All that can be said is that the `doctrine of desire' even if permissible should be based on objective considerations, public interest and service exigencies, in contradistinction to individual whim, caprice, arbitrariness, favouritism, nepotism and extraneous considerations, which include the pleasure or displeasure of a member of Legislative Assembly or a member of the Parliament, or political worker simpliciter. 15. All that can be said is that the `doctrine of desire' even if permissible should be based on objective considerations, public interest and service exigencies, in contradistinction to individual whim, caprice, arbitrariness, favouritism, nepotism and extraneous considerations, which include the pleasure or displeasure of a member of Legislative Assembly or a member of the Parliament, or political worker simpliciter. 16. The alleged marking on letters of legislators "Outside Constituency" "Outside district" "Outside City", if true exhibits serious political interference in administrative functioning of heads of department which should be avoided, irrespective of its justiciability. 17. In State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471 : ( AIR 1980 SC 319 ). Hon'ble Justice v. R. Krishna Iyer exploited the assumed notions of power of the Government bosses and while doing so he discussed inter alia the questions of mala fides and observed as under (at p. 321 qf AIR) : "The question, then, is what is mala fides in the jurisprudence of power? Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power - sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and satisfactions - is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated: "I repeat... that all power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. that all power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the action, mala fides or fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other official act." 18. Confronted with a similar situation, a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Krishan v. District Education Officer, Kulu, 1980 Lab IC 36 at p. 37, observed as under:- "We are, however, much concerned at the manner in which public workers or those indulging in politics are interfering in the day to day administration of the State. This is the first time when we have come across an official order recording such undesirable interference though in many other matters we are confronted with allegations made by the petitioners that their transfers are made on political grounds or on interference by those who indulge in politics. We hereby record our strong disapproval of such type of interference from outsiders in day to day administration of the State. If such interference is to be allowed, it would only mean that the Government servants should run after those who are taking part in public life and in politics for getting better terms of service and a better place for their postings, and should do everything to please them and not to please the department by their ability, honesty and integrity. It need not be emphasised that such interference of outsiders in day to day administration of the State is fiighly detrimental to the public interest as it would result in nepotism and corruption wherein only those who can wield influence and purse, can succeed. It need not be emphasised that such interference of outsiders in day to day administration of the State is fiighly detrimental to the public interest as it would result in nepotism and corruption wherein only those who can wield influence and purse, can succeed. Therefore, we want by this judgment to bring it to the notice of all concerned, that sooner this type of interference is discouraged and stopped, the better for the administration and the people of this State." 19. In the celebrated case of Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under (at p. 1999):- "So far as the first limitation is concerned, it flows directly from the thesis that, unlike a private individual, the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess. Though ordinarily a private individual would be guided by economic considerations of self-gain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him under the law to act contrary to his self-interest or to oblige another in entering into a contract or dealing with his property. But the Government is not free to act as it likes in granting largess such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property. Whatever be its activity, the Government is still the Government and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The constitutional powers conferred on the Government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the Government has a public element in it and it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest, the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated." 20. Though, I am avoiding any discussion and adjudication of the important questions raised by the petitioners in these cases, which may have far reaching consequences, but I cannot refrain myself from observing that mass transfers of civil servants on wholesale basis on considerations other than public interest or exigencies of that particular service, whether done by one ruling party or the other, is a vice and melody of serious magnitude. It affects the civil servants both mentally and financially, and economically and drains money of public exchequer, which is kept in trust by the Government who are the custodians and trustees of public funds, which is always filled in by the sweat and perspiration of the people who contribute their hard earned money with great expectations that it would be utilised for the development of the State and for providing essential service and social welfare. If that trust money of the people is used rather abused or misused in carrying out mass transfers, upsetting the entire administration, in order to do or undo or respect and carry out the desires of all and sundry not connected with the administration, a situation may come when this Court may strike them down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as has been done in the case of mass sacking of Lecturers in the University of Rajasthan, case referred to above. 21. I am glad that in the instant case, this Court has not been called upon to consider in detail that dispute and those serious allegations of mala fides of mass transfers of 20,000 teachers, which may or may not have been justified, because the Government has acted promptly to undo the mischief done by the earlier orders of mass transfers of teachers grade III outside their districts. Such a prompt action of the Government has curtailed the controversy in this case, and I am, therefore, refraining from entering into the controversy of the allegations mentioned in paras 9 and 10 of the writ petitions, which I am leaving undecided. 22. The replies given by the Government in answer to questions 3 and 4 of this Court contain the words "Whenever and wherever vacancies exist" which according to me keeps ample scope of avoiding the issue for indefinite period. I, therefore, enquired from the Government Advocate whether it is possible for them to give a definite date by which time these impugned orders would be withdrawn. Since the respondents were not in a position to fix any deadline, it has fallen upon me to issue proper directions, so that the poor low paid teachers may not be thrown from pillar to pole and pole to pillar any more. Since the respondents were not in a position to fix any deadline, it has fallen upon me to issue proper directions, so that the poor low paid teachers may not be thrown from pillar to pole and pole to pillar any more. The warrants of social justice and anxiety to give relief to citizens and more so to the lowest in the ladder, has compelled me not to adopt a short-cut of declaring the writ as infructuous, but to decide the question of scope of transfers of teachers grade III outside their district once for ever, and to issue appropriate directions to the respondents. 23. As would be clear from the answer to questions 1 and 2, there is no State wise seniority list of teachers grade III, and their seniority list is Revenue District wise. Moreover, the promotion of teachers from Grade III to Grade II are made on the basis of district wise seniority. The above two answers amply show that serious consequences detrimental to the interest of a teacher can follow, if he is transferred from one district to another district. Firstly, the moment he is transferred from one district, the inter se seniority of that district would be disturbed. Secondly, the chances of promotion in the incoming district may be hampered and impaired, if earlier appointed teachers in that district are there, as they would claim seniority for promotion to grade II teachers. In a given case, it may tantamount to deprive him of an opportunity of promotion and thereby denying him equal protection clause and equal opportunity granted by Article 16 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter, unless a particular teacher voluntarily requests for transfer outside district waiving his right of seniority in the earlier district and not claiming seniority over other employees of the incoming district, a transfer of teacher grade III would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and I hold accordingly. 24. These teachers are governed by Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the Rules). Rule 29 of these rules governs the question of seniority. Amendments were introduced in 1971 Rules by notification dated July 7, 1979 published in `Shivra' of January, 1980 at page 359. The relevant amendments are as under:- "1. 24. These teachers are governed by Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the Rules). Rule 29 of these rules governs the question of seniority. Amendments were introduced in 1971 Rules by notification dated July 7, 1979 published in `Shivra' of January, 1980 at page 359. The relevant amendments are as under:- "1. The seniority lists in each District shall be prepared separately for the boys and girls institutions irrespective of the sex of the employees. 4. The seniority of persons transferred from one District to another shall be determined as if he has been appointed as ab initio in the District to which he has been transferred." 25. Even for the determination of seniority of teachers Grade II R. 7 mentions that persons promoted in such academic session to Grade II under the same appointing authority, their inter se seniority will be determined according to the position in the next lower grade, i.e., grade III already determined in the district wise seniority lists of Inspectorate. Clause (b) of R. 7 of the Rules reads as under:- "7 (b) - The inter se seniority of persons promoted in such academic session under the same appointing authority will be determined according to their position in next lower grade i.e. Ill grade already determined in the district wise seniority lists of the Inspectorate. The persons getting seniority in the same grade with reference to earlier dates in different districts will rank higher to those who get seniority with reference to later dates. In cases, where seniority of two persons has been determined in two different districts in the same grade with reference to the same date, their inter se position will be determined as under : 1. In case of III Grade teachers in various grades up to 31-8-61 their inter se seniority will be determined according to date with reference to which it has been determined in their further next lower grade. 2. In cases where there is no further lower grade and/or two, III grade teachers seniority has been determined as direct recruits in the same grade or with reference to the same date, their inter se position will be determined according to age. The person older in age will rank senior to one who is younger." 26. 2. In cases where there is no further lower grade and/or two, III grade teachers seniority has been determined as direct recruits in the same grade or with reference to the same date, their inter se position will be determined according to age. The person older in age will rank senior to one who is younger." 26. In the new transfer policy which is in existence today, the admitted position is that the Education Department Grade III teachers are not to be transferred outside their respective districts. This is in consonance with the interpretation which I have made and given to the Rules of teachers, according to which except in cases of voluntary transfers, teachers grade III cannot be transferred outside their district. The policy of the Governor consistent with the above observations of this Court, and the guidelines are based on very sound principle that low paid employees of the Government, who are in a very large number and who form the back-bone of the Government should not be treated like a football to be kicked from one point to other, depending upon the skill of the player, who happens to be having divergent interest and sometimes vested interest, in the democratic set up, under the federal constitution. If an employee is kicked like a football from one place to other, not only he suffers financially and socially but he loses initiative and interest, which is necessary for the performance of his duties. It is, therefore, in the interest of any good Government that he must be assured of certainty of tenure, certainty of service conditions and transfers according to the established norms and guidelines, which should never be on the vagaries, caprice or arbitrary discretion of those who are not concerned directly, and having not the legal competence to pass the transfer orders. 27. It is not in dispute that the transfer orders of teachers grade III are to be passed either by the Head of the Departments or those who are in charge of them in a particular district, as the case may be. The State Government's desire, therefore, normally would not intervene and intermeddle in the administrative exigencies to be considered by the Head of the Department. The State Government's desire, therefore, normally would not intervene and intermeddle in the administrative exigencies to be considered by the Head of the Department. Of course, the State Government has got the general power to lay down the norms and once a while, in a given case if the public interests are such, that the Head of Department should not be disclosed the reasons, then the power of the Government to interfere cannot be questioned. But, that is not equivalent to issuing orders for thousands of low paid employees like teachers on the basis of the desire doctrine. I am, therefore, of the opinion, as I have said in Dr. (Mrs.) Rukmani's case (1982 Lab I C NOC 11) (Raj), that so long as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution continue to have the pride of place in part III of the Constitution, this Court would not permit arbitrary mass actions either by sacking the employees or making wholesale transfers of low paid employees outside their districts either on the grounds of political expediency resulting from change of the ruling party or on account of individual recommendations by persons who are not directly part of the administrations, but do wire pulling behind the curtain and which is expressed in an innocuous terminology of Government's desire. Of course, this should not prevent the Government from its normal functions of giving a clean administration, and if large scale transfers are required with that object, this Court would not intermeddle as a `third chamber' or as `a supervisory authority, because it is conscious of its limited jurisdiction. 28. So far as the present cases are concerned, the new policy of the Government now as disclosed in the reply submitted to the questions and queries posed by this Court, it corroborates and substantiates the above observations of the Court and it is a matter of satisfaction that the Education Ministry of the Government has realised that the earlier mass transfers of grade III teachers outside their districts were not justified. 29. Mr. Khan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents pointed out that according to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sardar Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 860 (864), and Bennett Coleman and Co. 29. Mr. Khan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents pointed out that according to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sardar Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 860 (864), and Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 , the policy decisions of the Government are not justiciable, and, therefore, this Court should not pass any general directions in this matter also. 30. So far as the controversy raised by Mr. Khan is concerned, I am not inclined to adjudicate that controversy in this case, because no policy decision of the Government is being adjudicated upon by this court as valid or invalid, nor it is being enforced by issuance of a writ. It is also true that this Court would be slow in making any general observations which would disturb the day to day administration of the Government, as the Court is not concerned with the general policy. However, as and when appropriate cases come before this Court, it becomes the duty of this court as `watchdog' of the Constitution, to point out whether any action or decision of the State in all its fields, Legislative as well as executive, is violative of any guarantees enshrined in part III of the Constitution or rule of law. 31. I am inclined to accept the request of Mr. Khan that the Government should not be directed to immediately undo the mass transfers of teachers grade-III outside their districts, if they are surviving even now, but in consonance with the reply filed by the respondents to the queries posted by the Court, it would be for the Government itself to send them back to their districts whenever and wherever the vacancies are created. Mr. Khan further added that this would be done on priority basis as the Government has to implement its policy. 32. In view of the above, the observations of this Court, should be treated as confined to the present petitioners only, so far as the material operative part of the judgment is concerned. But, I would be failing in my duty, if before parting with this case, I refrain from inviting the attention of the authorities concerned, to the following observations, which I have made after due thoughtful consideration, in a recent judgment of Dr. But, I would be failing in my duty, if before parting with this case, I refrain from inviting the attention of the authorities concerned, to the following observations, which I have made after due thoughtful consideration, in a recent judgment of Dr. (Mrs.) Rukmanf Vaish v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 661/79) decided oil July 31, 1981 : (1982 Lab I C NOC 11 (Raj.)) "A `Crackdown' and `Mass sacking' of University Lecturers (temporary) on change of ruling party by issuing Governors Ordinance, whether offends the equal protection clause, is the billion dollar question, raised under the banner of discrimination between `pre-emergency' and `post-emergency' appointees by Section 3 of the Ordinance. The `25th June, 1975' having been made the "Laxman Rekha", `deadline' or `D - Day', for regularisation of services, the ousted post-emergency Lecturers have invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to quash the "25th June, 1975", arbitrary dead line", a "brainchild" of the then Vice Chancellors and readily welcomed by the then Government, the ruling party of which is alleged to be anti-emergency." "The ruling political parties existence being temporary and changing, in federal democratic constitution, but the bureaucracy and services, being permanent, unalloyed, and unadulterated bedrock of the State; should the High Court as Watch-dog and custodian of the Constitution, strike down the laws intended to carry out "mass sacking operations" and "Crackdown" on "employees employed by earlier ruling party", is yet another `apex' controversy? The pivot of answers in this decision would be ambit, scope and dimensions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, detached from the political overtones." "I am impressed by submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the discrimination against post-emergency teachers, appears to be a "brain child" of a few Vice-Chancellors, who in 1978 were having the anti-emergency State Government and seemingly thought that the appointees of emergency period were "blue eyed boys" of emergency bosses and should be penalised by a mass "sack". The mass sacking of emergency appointees, is worst type of arbitrariness and it is outrageous and borders on `mala fides'. As watch-dogs of the Constitution, this Court cannot allow laws contemplating "mass sacking" of employees on grounds of change of ruling party, as long as Articles 14 and 16, continue to have pride place in Part III. The mass sacking of emergency appointees, is worst type of arbitrariness and it is outrageous and borders on `mala fides'. As watch-dogs of the Constitution, this Court cannot allow laws contemplating "mass sacking" of employees on grounds of change of ruling party, as long as Articles 14 and 16, continue to have pride place in Part III. For this Court, it is irrelevant whether emergency was clamped by one party or the other and whether it was hailed or condemned." 33. Fortunately, in these 13 cases it is common ground that in 12 cases there is stay order of this Court on account of which the petitioners are continuing on their earlier posting in the same district and the transfer orders have not been carried out. Only in the case of Ramchander (writ petition No. 1826/80) the transfer has been carried out from Jhunjhunu to Jaipur District. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents would take steps to send Ramchander back to his original district of Jhunjhunu anywhere, in case the earlier post on which he was working is not vacant now, within a period of one month from today. 34. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, since they are already continuing in the same districts, they would not now be required to carry out the transfer orders, which are quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned. 35. The result of the above discussion is, that all these writ petitions are accepted. It is ordered that the transfer orders of the petitioners outside their districts are invalid and they are hereby quashed. In case of petitioner Ramchander, one month's time is granted to the respondents to send him back to the original district of Jhunjhunu. The parties will bear their own costs.Petitions allowed. *******