JUDGMENT V. Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in these three petitions are High School Assistants working in Government High Schools and seeking to be transferred to posts in. Ernakulam District. The father inlaw of the petitioner in O.P. No. 8672 of 1983 had filed Ext. P2 representation before the Government, on which an order was passed by the Government on 29-6-1983 informing the first respondent that: "I am directed to forward a copy of the petition of Sri. K. P. Peter, Koilparatnbil, Cochin. The request of the petitioner is granted. The transfer may be given as requested in the petition.". The petitioner's complaint is that in spite of this direction, the petitioner's claim for transfer was not considered when Ext. P3 order was passed by the first respondent on 9-9-1983 granting inter district transfer to five teachers. The endorsements in the remarks column of Ext. P3 against the names of each of the teachers indicate that such transfers were effected pursuant to Government order dated 26-8-1982 and Government letters dated 20-4-1983, 8-8-1983, 12-5-1983 and 25-6-1983. The petitioner's complaint is that the 3rd person in Ext. P3 (who has been impleaded as 8th respondent in this Original Petition) was transferred pursuant to Government Letter dated 8-8-1983, whereas her claim pursuant to Government Letter dated 29-7-1983 was not considered. It is the petitioner's case that she was working in the Government High School, Manjerry for over six years since 23-2-1977, and her request for transfer was sanctioned by the Government on 29-7-1983; but persons with lesser service outside their home districts and who obtained orders from the Government subsequent to the date of the order in her favour have been transferred without regard to her claim for such transfer. 2. The petitioner in O.P. No. 9352 of 1983 is the wife of a Jawan, working as a High School Assistant in the Government School Irimbuzhi in Malappuram District since 14-10-1976. She claims that she belongs to Ponjikkara near Cochin and is the only daughter of her aged and sick parents who depend upon her. It is her case that these circumstances entitle her for preference in the matter of transfer to her home district. Her husband had submitted Ext. P1 representation dated 4-12-1981 which was followed by Ext. P2 dated 8-10-1982. But in Ext. It is her case that these circumstances entitle her for preference in the matter of transfer to her home district. Her husband had submitted Ext. P1 representation dated 4-12-1981 which was followed by Ext. P2 dated 8-10-1982. But in Ext. P3, her claim was turned down by the first respondent on the plea that no vacancies were available to transfer the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted Ext. P4 application in March 1983 requesting for transfer, and seeks, in this original petition, the issue of a writ of mandamus directing consideration of her application in view of the preference indicated in Government orders and instructions relating to inter direct transfer of teachers. According to her, near relatives of Jawans and teachers who have entered into inter caste marriage are entitled for preference in the matter of inter district transfer without loss of seniority. It is also submitted that in spite of the availability of vacancies and the instructions of the Government her claim was not considered. 3. The petitioner in O.P. No. 10179 of 1983 was appointed as a P.D. Teacher in G. M. U. P. S. Kannamangalam, in Malappuram district. After being transferred twice over, he was promoted as High School Assistant and transferred to Government High School for Boys, Tirur on 20-10-1982. All along, he was working in Malappuram district, though the petitioner belongs to Trichur District. His wife is employed in the S. D. P. Y School, Palluruthy, Ernakulam District. The petitioner filed a representation in March 1982 through proper channel requesting for transfer to Ernakulam district. But there was no order thereon. The petitioner's wife filed a representation on 7-6-1982 which was sanctioned by the Government by order dated 22-9-1982. Since that order was not given effect to, the petitioner appears to have filed another representation which was disposed of by Ext. P2 order, dated 5-4-1983, directing the first respondent to implement the orders in Govt. letter No. 49657/B1/82/G. dated 22-6-1982 during the next academic year. The petitioner's complaint is that this direction was also not given effect to and Ext. P3 representation submitted by the petitioner's wife on 16-9-1983 is yet to be disposed of. 4. P2 order, dated 5-4-1983, directing the first respondent to implement the orders in Govt. letter No. 49657/B1/82/G. dated 22-6-1982 during the next academic year. The petitioner's complaint is that this direction was also not given effect to and Ext. P3 representation submitted by the petitioner's wife on 16-9-1983 is yet to be disposed of. 4. Since it seemed that the Government had been issuing directions to the first respondent in the matter of inter district transfer far in excess of the number of vacancies available, and such orders were given effect to at random without reference to any principles by the first respondent, I requested the Liaison Officer to collect the details of orders of inter district transfers directed by the Government on representations of the parties and the details of the extent to which such directions were implemented as also inter district transfers effected by the first respondent without any directions from the Government. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent pursuant thereto. It is submitted that applications for inter district transfers used to be registered according to seniority. Ext. P1 application submitted by the petitioner in O.P. No. 8672/83 was registered as item No. 24 according to her seniority. But in 1982-83, she could not be transferred, since only 25% of the vacancies caused due to retirement or creation of additional posts due to staff fixation could be filled up by inter district transfer and the maximum number of such transfers permissible during the year 1982-83 was only five. It is also submitted that all the five teachers who were given transfer had obtained orders from the Government granting inter district transfer. It is conceded that 3 out of these 5 teachers are juniors to the petitioner according to length of service. But they were given inter district transfer on the basis of special orders issued by the Government. It is stated that the Government letter dated 29-7-1983 granting the request of the petitioner for transfer was received by the first respondent on 17-8-1983, and the Government letter dated 8-8-1983 directing transfer of Smt. Susam Varghese, the Additional 8th respondent was received by the first respondent on 16-8-1983. The Ist respondent proceeds further to state that the claim of the petitioner as per Government order dated earlier was not considered, whereas the request of the 8th respondent was sanctioned by Ext. P3 order. The Ist respondent proceeds further to state that the claim of the petitioner as per Government order dated earlier was not considered, whereas the request of the 8th respondent was sanctioned by Ext. P3 order. The only reason mentioned for this preference of the 8th respondent is that at the time of Ext. P3 order, there were 26 special orders from the Government directing transfer to the existing vacancies which were only five in number, and the incumbent in the office of the first respondent at that time decided priority for cases in which there was maximum hardship. It is also disclosed in the Counter Affidavit that against 31 vacancies of graduate High School Assistants available in 1983-84, 8 graduate teachers were posted from other districts and all such transfers were on the basis of special orders from the Government. The first respondent further submits that there were 81 requests for inter district transfer to Ernakulam district out of which 31 cases were covered by special orders issued by the Government sanctioning inter district transfer to Ernakulam District which are yet to be implemented. The details of those 21 special orders of the Government are furnished by the first respondent. But it is not disclosed as to whether these special orders were issued by the Government on the basis of any general principle of uniform application or whether they were passed on ad hoc considerations of expediency. I venture to assume that the reason for the special orders of the Government in favour of these 21 persons must have been the greater accessibility of these fortunate few to the power wielders and not any principle of uniform application. The eighth respondent who admittedly obtained orders from the Government later than the petitioner is a party respondent in O.P. No. 8672 of 1983 and notice was served on her. No counter affidavit has, however, been filed disclosing the special circumstances justifying the peculiar hardships on the basis of which she was preferred for transfer to the petitioner who obtained special orders from the Government earlier. The court is left guessing about the plea of serious hardships which induced the preference in favour of the eighth respondent. In the absence of any counter affidavit from the eighth respondent and in the absence of any explanation for the preferential treatment in her favour in Ext. The court is left guessing about the plea of serious hardships which induced the preference in favour of the eighth respondent. In the absence of any counter affidavit from the eighth respondent and in the absence of any explanation for the preferential treatment in her favour in Ext. P3 from the first respondent, I cannot but assume that the preference was the result of an indiscriminate choice by the first respondent. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed by the fifth and tenth respondents in O.P. No. 8672 of 1983. The fifth respondent submits that he commenced service on 31-7-1975, whereas the petitioner commenced service only on 23-2-1977. It is further submitted that she obtained a special order of transfer from Government on 23-6-1983 whereas the petitioner got the order is her favour only on 29-7-1983. She submits further that she had applied for transfer even in March, 1982, and would have got transfer on the basis of that application if there had been special orders by Government. It is further asserted that "my chance was lost only because of few special orders given to certain teachers then." The respondent also submits that even-though she obtained such a special order of transfer from Government as early as on 18-8-1982, that could be implemented only on 23-8-1983, since the earlier vacancies were filled up with her juniors. She also contests the claim of the petitioner for transfer in preference to her. The tenth respondent submits that she commenced service pursuant to order dated 27-4-1977, that her husband is employed in F.A.C.T., that representations were made four times for an inter district transfer to Ernakulam District, that she had applied for inter district transfer through proper channel in March, 1983 and that she could get a direction from Government to the first respondent only in letter No. 26918/R1 G. dated 23-1-1983, when the Government High School was opened at Eloor. She also submits that her claim for inter district transfer was properly sanctioned in her favour by Government and duly implemented by the first respondent. 6. These two counter affidavits disclose a very peculiar situation. She also submits that her claim for inter district transfer was properly sanctioned in her favour by Government and duly implemented by the first respondent. 6. These two counter affidavits disclose a very peculiar situation. The fifth respondent was senior to the petitioner and had obtained a special order from the Government directing her transfer to Ernakulam District, by order dated 18-8-1982, Three out of five persons appointed in 1982-83 are admittedly junior to the petitioner and necessarily therefore junior to the fifth respondent also. The fifth respondent's specific plea is that she could not obtain inter district transfer only because of special orders issued by the Government. The tenth respondent commenced service in Trichur District more than two months after the petitioner in O.P. No. 8672 of 1983 joined service. But she manages to get a special order on 25-1-1983 from Government, whereas the petitioner gets a similar direction only on 29-7-1983. Obviously, the Government was issuing orders to all who went to it without any reference to the number of vacancies available and without any regard to the principles of general application evolved by itself to channelise the exercise of power relating to inter district transfer of teachers. 7. Even though the State is a party in these proceedings, no counter affidavit has so far been filed by the State explaining the circumstances in which special orders were passed in the matter of inter district transfer of teachers and what action was taken by the Government when such orders and directions issued by the Government in the concerned Deputy Director of Education. In the absence of any explanation on the part of the State, I have to assume that special orders were being issued indiscriminately and in an absolutely light hearted manner, without pausing to ascertain the number of vacancies available, the number of teachers who could be granted inter district transfer and the principles which had to be adopted in a situation where there were more applicants than vacancies. The facts disclosed by the first respondent in his affidavit reveal a very anomalous situation. The Government had issued directions at random leaving it to the concerned Deputy Director of Education to choose from among those who had obtained directions for transfer against fewer number of vacancies than were necessary for effective implementation of the directions of the Government. The facts disclosed by the first respondent in his affidavit reveal a very anomalous situation. The Government had issued directions at random leaving it to the concerned Deputy Director of Education to choose from among those who had obtained directions for transfer against fewer number of vacancies than were necessary for effective implementation of the directions of the Government. No wonder, if in following the precept of the Government, the Deputy Director of Education acted likewise in selecting, out of the persons who had obtained special orders, again at random, without reference to any principles at all and on the basis of his assessment of the comparative hardships which is not sought to be justified before this Court either by the then incumbent in the office of Deputy Director because he is not in office now or by the beneficiaries of those indiscriminate selections. 8. The Government is of course the ultimate repository of control of the teaching staff of the Government Schools and therefore, the Government is entitled to oversee the implementation of directions relating to inter district transfers also. But when once instructions were issued specifying the guidelines which should govern such transfers, it is essential that the Government confines itself to the duty of overseeing implementation of such directions instead of meddling with each individual case of transfer. I can only sympathise the very unenviable position of the Deputy Director who had been informed by the Government, by orders of general application, about the principles to be applied in the matter of inter district transfer of teachers, like the period of service necessary outside the home district registration of applicants, seniority among applicants, and like other factors, and was then compelled to implement individual special orders from the same Government, more often than not, in conflict with the principles of general application. The Deputy Director having been directed that he shall maintain a register of applicants for inter district transfer in the order of seniority and that he should give preference to specified categories like near relatives of Jawans, persons who have entered into inter caste marriages etc., and that teachers without the qualifying service outside the home district shall not be considered for inter district transfer, if the Government itself issues special orders of transfer contrary to the guidelines contained in orders of general application, the resultant situation will be far from satisfactory. Which shall be the direction which the Deputy Director has to follow? Is it the earlier rule of general application contained in the guidelines governing inter district transfer of teachers? Or is it the individual special orders passed by the Government apparently in contravention of these principles? Or has the Deputy Director to give effect to the orders of transfer on the basis of the serial number or the date of the order without regard to seniority or other special circumstances advocated by each of the applications? Understandably, the Deputy Director is in a quandary because of these conflicting directions. It is more so because of the plurality of the directions far in excess of the vacancies which could be filled up by inter district transfers. It is high time that the Government realises that its continued efficacy depends on a larger amount or self discipline than its anxiety to discipline others, and every attempt made by the apex power centre to subvert this sense of discipline is likely to lead only to a Government by caprico and whim of the power wielders rather than to sustain a Government of laws. 9. In the present case, it is evident that the three petitioners have tried to overreach the ordinary instrumentality in an understandable anxiety to get priority in their favour. They should ordinarily have applied to the first respondent for inter district transfer. He is expected to order such transfers on the basis of the rank among the registered applicants determined with reference to orders of uniform application. Obviously, each of the petitioners tried to get better of the other applicants and therefore went straight to the Government to obtain orders of transfer. The Government appears to have willingly obliged, of course without considering the relevant facts and without even pausing to consider for a moment the effect of the issue of such orders in favour of all persons who approached them. I could have understood, if the Government decided to pass orders only after ascertaining the facts from the authorities concerned or decided to refrain from interfering except in cases where complaints of violation of the norms by the concerned authorities were brought to the notice of the Government. The Government has brought upon it a situation where its directions can be discarded, because in any case, compliance with all the directions was impossible of performance. 10. The Government has brought upon it a situation where its directions can be discarded, because in any case, compliance with all the directions was impossible of performance. 10. As to the relief which is to be granted to the petitioners. I need only say this, that the claims of the three petitioners will be re-considered with reference to five persons who were transferred by Ext. P3 order in O.P. No. 8672 of 1983 and the other three teachers transferred in June 1983 (Respondents 3 to 5 in O.P. 8672/1983) and such persons as are entitled for priority on the basis of the principles of uniform application such as seniority among the applicants, preference in favour of relatives of Jawans etc., without any regard to the date or the number of the Government Letters or orders concerned. If on such re-examination it is found that the respondents are not the persons entitled for transfer and the claims of the petitioners were to be considered in preference to them, the petitioners will be transferred cancelling the transfers-given to the respondents. If the Government is anxious, as any Government of laws should be, that its directions are given effect to, it is necessary and obligatory that the Government keeps off issuing special orders of transfer leaving it to the concerned authorities to order such transfers in accordance with the general orders. It is desirable that the Government reserves its right to oversee the effective implementation of the guidelines and does not set about violating its own instructions on the basis of ad hoc considerations of expediency. It is essential that those who happen to wield power remember that the more effective use of power rests in restraint than its indiscriminate use to please everyone.