JUDGMENT 1. :- All the above mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order, as they are identical in nature and common questions of law and fact have been raised in them. 2. The petitioners, in the above petitions, are Primary Teachers in Grade-III of Panchayat Samiti, Sanganer, Jhotwara and Amer and they are questioning the impugned orders of their transfer to other Panchayat Samitis, namely, Chaksu, Phagi and Jamua Ramgarh and Dudu. Their transfer orders came to be passed to face the situation created by extension of territorial limits of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, whereby 78 Primary Schools of Panchayat Samitis Sanganer, Amer and Jhotwara were transferred under the control of Education Department. This made 224 teachers surplus in those Panchayat Samitis. The petitioners and other teachers, consequently, were transferred from their respective Panchayat Samitis to other Panchayat Samitis in the same district to meet the situation. The petitioners in the above petitioners have approached this Court challenging their transfer to be invalid. 3. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, have challenged the transfer orders, mainly, on the following grounds during their arguments : (i) That the petitioners were transferred to accommodate teachers of 78 transferred schools, who were rendered surplus on account of handing over/transfer of the schools to Education Department. According to learned counsel, if any transfer was to be made, then the teachers of those 78 schools ought to have been transferred: (ii) That transfer orders have been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as, the concerned authority did not objectively take into consideration the judgments and earlier transfer orders passed on the transfer of 78 schools to the Education Department; (iii) That comparative hardship and observations/directions given by this court in the judgment dated August 31, 1995, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4638/94 and three other similar writ petitions have been ignored while passing transfer orders of the petitioners; (iv) That transfers are in violation to the transfer Policy declared by the State Government. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari contended that the respondents have adopted an equitable, just and fair criteria in transferring teachers from Panchayat Samitis Jhotwara, Amer and Sanganer to other nearby Panchayat Samitis, within the same district, in orde to absob and accommodate surplus teachers. Mr. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari contended that the respondents have adopted an equitable, just and fair criteria in transferring teachers from Panchayat Samitis Jhotwara, Amer and Sanganer to other nearby Panchayat Samitis, within the same district, in orde to absob and accommodate surplus teachers. Mr. Bhandari contended that 244 teachers of three Panchayat Samitis became surplus on account of transfer/handing over 78 Schools of those Panchayat Samitis to the Education Department, which happened to come in territorial limits of Jaipur Municiapl Corporation by delimitation. That seniority of the teachers had been the sole basis for making teachers (sic transfers), in as much as, teachers having lesser period of service in the concerned Panchayat Samitis in comparison to other teachers have been transferred to other Panchayat Samitis. Learned counsel contended that after all excess teachers, than the sanctioned strength, were to be transferred and there was no other fair and reasonable basis than the one adopted by the authority. It was also contended that the petitioners held transferable posts and were liable to be transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to other Panchayat Samiti and they cannot be allowed to put any complaint against their transfer which have been made on a reasonable and equitable basis. That surplus teachers were transferred to the nearby Panchayat Samitis where there was a deficiency and a demand for appointment of teachers was being made and case (sic care) has been taken to cause them minimum hardship and inconvenience. Mr. Bhandari in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the decisions in Ram Kishore Sharma vs. Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, 1993 (1) RLR 656 , Silpi Bose (Mrs.) & others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 659 and in Union of India & ors v. S.L. Abbas, JT 1993 (3) SC 678 . 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. At the outset it may be stated that it was not disputed before me that the petitioners were holding post liable to be transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to other Panchayat Samiti. The power of the transferring Authority was also not questioned in these writ petitions, though, Mr. Bhandari pointed out that transfer orders were passed by the Chief Executive Officer-cum- Secretary, Zila Parishad in exercise of powers delegated to him by the State Government. The power of the transferring Authority was also not questioned in these writ petitions, though, Mr. Bhandari pointed out that transfer orders were passed by the Chief Executive Officer-cum- Secretary, Zila Parishad in exercise of powers delegated to him by the State Government. From the common reply filed by the respondents it transpires that the teachers having lesser period of service in their respective Panchayat Samities have been transferred in order to meet the uncommon situation rendering 244 teachers in surplus due to transfer of 78 Schools of the Panchayat Samitis to the State Education Department. In my opinion the criteria adopted for making transfers is most just and fair and any other criteria might have been challengable as arbitrary and discriminatory. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that teachers of 78 transferred Schools ought to have been transferred as they were declared surplus is wholly fallacious. On transfer of 78 Panchayat Schools to the Education Department, it is wong to assume that they automatically became surplus though they requested to be posted in other schools of their respective Panchayat Samitis. All Primary teachers working in various Schools under a Panchayat Samiti are employees of that particular Panchayat Samiti. When their number exceeds the sanctioned posts, the excess teachers are rendered surplus. All Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads are statutory public bodies and they are expected to act reasonably and with fairness in deciding as to who should be declared surplus and transferred to meet such situation. Had the criteria adopted by the Authority in transferring the teachers as surplus teachers, been unreasonable or aribitrary, this Court interfering in the matter, but here, as stated earlier a reasonable and equitable criteria has been adopted in selecting teachers for transfer in order to meet the situation created by excess staffing. 6. It is true that some teachers, who were employed in 78 transferred schools, had filed writ petitions before this Court, which have been decided by the learned Single Judge on August 31, 1995. In those writ petitions, their prayer was that they be absorbed in the Education Department of the Government on transfer of 78 Panchayat Schools where they were working. In those writ petitions, their prayer was that they be absorbed in the Education Department of the Government on transfer of 78 Panchayat Schools where they were working. Their prayer was declined by this Court in view of Rule 6-D of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and Schedules given thereunder, which provided two modes of appointment, namely 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by transfer from Panchayat Samitis posts of Schools of the concerned District strictly on the basis of the seniority amongst teachers having 5 years standing. While dismissing the writ petitions, the following directions were given in para No. 14 of the judgment : "14. In these circumstances, it is directed : (a) that the Education Department is bound to follow the provisions of Rule 6-D of the Rules of 1971; (b) that the Education Department cannot act contrary to Rule 6-D so as to effect the rights of those senior teachers who are working in the primary school for last number of years and are waiting for appointment absorption in the Education Department; (c) that the Education Department cannot discriminate be- tween the teachers of one Panchayat Samiti and the other and since the same procedure is said to have followed in Kota and Jodhpur when the municipal limits of those cities were extended and administrative control was taken of primary schools by the Education Department the different treatment cannot be given to the teachers of the primary schools of Amer, Sanganer and Jhotwara of Jaipur district. (d) that the correspondence between the officers of Panchayati Raj Department is not binding on the Education Department and even if the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department desires for absorption of all the teachers of its schools of Jaipur District, the Education Department cannot act contrary to Rule 6-D of the Rules of 1971; (e) that Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department as well as Government of Rajasthan has jurisdiction to transfer the teachers of primary school of the rural areas which have not come in the extended limits of Jaipur Municiapl Corporation; (f) that with regard to lady-teachers who may be widow, deserted one or the ladies whose hsubands are employed at Jaipur and physically handicapped persons, the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department/State Govt. may consider their transfer sympathetically in the light of the observations made above and may be adjusted at nearby place of the primary school of Zila Parishad. No legal right could be claimed for transferring them to such place. The above judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Partent Appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. It is also true that before the decision in those writ petitions a transfer list of 117 teachers was issued by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur on 30.6.1995 whereby teachers of Sanganer Panchayat Samitis were transferred to other Panchayat Samitis and they were the teachers who were employed in 78 Schools which stood transferred to the Education Department. But, it appears that the said order was not complied with and in pursuance to that order the teachers did not join. The petitioners cannot get any benefit from that order for the simple reason that it is for the concerned Authority to decide who should be transferred. By subsequent transfer orders the above order stands superseded automatically. Further, the said order dated 30.6.95, transferring teachers employed in 78 transferred Schools treating them as surplus would have been subject to arbitrariness and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as those teachers had put in larger period of service in comparision of other teachers. In any case, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in the present writ petitions, as their transfer is based on a criteria which is just and equitable and is in consonance of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 7. The argument on behalf of the petitioners based on the guidelines given in transfer Policy of the State Government has also no merit. First, the guidelines have no statutory force and secondly, the guidelines do not deal a situation like the present one where teachers are rendered surplus necessitating their absorbation and transfer. 8. Thus, judged from all angles, the petitions have no merit and consequently they are dismissed. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Before parting with, I would also like to give some directions in the matter after having taken into consideration the entire situation and the facts. 8. Thus, judged from all angles, the petitions have no merit and consequently they are dismissed. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Before parting with, I would also like to give some directions in the matter after having taken into consideration the entire situation and the facts. The respondents have come out with a case that only those teachers have been transferred who have completed comparatively less period of service in their respective Panchayat Samiti. Before this Court, no seniority list has been produced and there is no material on record to examine this aspect qua each of the petitioner to see whether he or she has been transferred in violation of the said criteria. Then, many of the petitioners are lay-teachers, some of them are unarried or widows, some of them were recently transferred to the Panchayat Samitis Sanganer, Jhotwara or Amer on their desire for their own problems. By these transfers some of the petitioners have been sent away form their spouses. Many of the petitioners might have their own problems as a result of their transfer to other Panchayat Samitis and they are being transferred against their wishes. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that transfer of an employee from a place of their choice or convenience always causes some problem to him and his family members. The desirability of the husband and wife to be posted at the same station or nearby stations as far as practicable, is also obvious. The petitioners have been subjected to transfer for no fault on their part to meet a situation which was created by the transfer of 78 Panchayat Schools in the Education Department. The desirability of the husband and wife to be posted at the same station or nearby stations as far as practicable, is also obvious. The petitioners have been subjected to transfer for no fault on their part to meet a situation which was created by the transfer of 78 Panchayat Schools in the Education Department. Having given my careful and anxious consideration to all the aspects, I propose to give the following directions to the respondents to be carried out by them : (i) If any transferred teacher challenges his/her seniority, he/she shall be free to make a representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur and if any such representation is made, the same shall be disposed of by a speaking order after ascertaining factual aspect from the concerned Panchayat Samiti and if it is found that his/her transfer has been made in violation to the criteria of transfer, necessary relief shall be given by re-transferring to the parent Panchayat Samiti; (ii) As and when any vacancy of Primary Teacher Gr. III accrues in Sanganer, Jhotwara and Amer Panchayat Samitis the transferred lady-teachers shall be accommodated for being posted/trans- ferred to their respective parent Panchayat Samiti strictly on the basis of their seniority in that I'anchayat Samiti, if they give option to go back there. After accommodating all the lady teachers, the remaining vacancies, if any, shall be filled in by re- transferring male-teachers as per their seniority in service in their respective parent Panchayat Samitis, if they give option to go back. The above directions shall be strictly followed by all concerned. Petitions Dismissed. *******