Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—Rule in Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003. Learned AGP Mrs. Manisha Shah waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 4. 2. This is a triangular fight between three sets of teachers, all fighting for their placements in Gandhinagar Town. Facts leading to these groups of petitions are long and complex. Shorn off unnecessary details, factual aspects may be noted at this stage. 3. Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 and connected matters, namely, Special Civil Application No. 10990/2001 and 10991/2001 and other one page petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 13301 of 2000 to 13334 of 2000 are filed by Primary School Teachers of Gandhinagar District whose spouses are not in Government or Panchayat Services stationed at Gandhinagar Town. Their grievance is that transfer policy of the State Government did not envisage any quota for such teachers for being brought over to Gandhinagar Town on transfer. They have challenged the Government policy in this regard on various grounds. 3.1. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6506 of 2002 are the Primary School Teachers stationed in Gandhinagar District. They are the teachers whose spouses are in Government or in Panchayat service and are stationed at Gandhinagar Town. They complain about the stand of the Government by which the earlier policy of filling up of vacancies of Primary School Teachers in Government Schools in Gandhinagar Town through transfer of teachers who are in Gandhinagar District and whose spouses are posted at Gandhinagar Town in Government or in Panchayat service is changed. They are contending that the earlier policy of the Government should be continued and all vacancies in the Gandhinagar Town of Primary School Teachers in Government Schools should be filled by transfer from their category. 3.2. Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 are filed by the petitioners who are the recently appointed Teachers in the Primary Schools in Gandhinagar Town. They are opposing their transfer outside Gandhinagar Town at different places in Gandhinagar District. Thus, all three sets of petitioners are primarily concerned with their placing and posting at Gandhinagar Town. 4. 3.2. Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 are filed by the petitioners who are the recently appointed Teachers in the Primary Schools in Gandhinagar Town. They are opposing their transfer outside Gandhinagar Town at different places in Gandhinagar District. Thus, all three sets of petitioners are primarily concerned with their placing and posting at Gandhinagar Town. 4. Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 came to be filed by the petitioners who are Primary School Teachers at various places in Gandhinagar District and who are aspiring to be posted in Government Schools at Gandhinagar Town. These are the Teachers who do not have their spouses working in the State or Panchayat Service and are stationed at Gandhinagar. It is the common ground between the petitioners of all petitions (Except petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 15325/2003) and also the respondents that since many years all vacancies to the post of Primary Teachers in Government Schools in Gandhinagar Town are being filled in only by way of transfer of Primary School Teachers who were stationed in Gandhinagar District. It is the case of these petitioners as well as the State Government that considering the peculiar geographical and other situation in Gandhinagar Town, there has always been the policy of the State Government to fill up such vacancies by transfer. Various circulars issued by the State Government in this regard have been produced on record. The policy of the State Government has changed from to time to meet with the requirements prevailing at the relevant time. It is however, the common ground between all these parties that all throughout, the State Government has filled up the vacancies in Gandhinagar Town only by way of transfer and the process of direct recruitment has never been resorted to. 5. Learned AGP Ms. Shah appearing for the State Government in all the petitions has produced on record certain Government Resolutions governing the said policy for filing up the vacancies of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town by transfer. 6. 5. Learned AGP Ms. Shah appearing for the State Government in all the petitions has produced on record certain Government Resolutions governing the said policy for filing up the vacancies of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town by transfer. 6. Focusing only on the recent circulars which would have a direct bearing on the issues arising in these petitions, it would appear that in supercession of the earlier policy, the State Government evolved a policy circulated vide circular dated 03.07.1999 in which it was provided that all vacancies arising in the cadre of Primary School Teachers in Government Schools in Gandhinagar Town will be filled up by way of transfer of such teachers whose spouses are employed in the State Government or Panchayats service and are stationed at Gandhinagar. It is further provided that transfer will be on the basis of seniority of the teachers concerned. By the intervention of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000, details of which will be adverted to at a later stage, the State Government evolved a new policy and issued circular dated 02.07.2002. The earlier policy of filling up of vacancies in Gandhinagar Town evolved by the circular dated 03.07.1999 was superseded. Instead, it was provided that the vacancies will be filled up, of course, by transfer from three groups of teachers in three different proportions. It was provided that 34 per cent of the vacancies will be filled up by transfer of teachers whose spouses are placed at Gandhinagar Town and who are on non-transferable posts, 33 per cent of the vacancies would be filled up by transferring teachers from Gandhinagar District on the basis of their seniority and total length of service and 33 per cent of the vacancies will be filled up by transferring teachers in Gandhinagar district who are project affected families on account of acquisition carried out by the State Government for the purpose of creation of Gandhinagar and whose spouses are employed in different Boards, Corporations, Panchayat Service and are placed at Gandhinagar Town. It was additionally provided that for preparing the list of Teachers to be transferred from the quota of 34 per cent reserved for the above mentioned category, the same will be done on the basis of their seniority (length of service in Gandhinagar) from the date they joined Gandhinagar District. 7. It was additionally provided that for preparing the list of Teachers to be transferred from the quota of 34 per cent reserved for the above mentioned category, the same will be done on the basis of their seniority (length of service in Gandhinagar) from the date they joined Gandhinagar District. 7. When the earlier Government policy of 03.07.1999 was in vogue, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 felt aggrieved since the said policy did not leave any scope for such teachers to seek transfer to Gandhinagar Town since their spouses were not employed in the State Government or Panchayat Service and stationed in Gandhinagar Town. Thus those teachers filed Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 and prayed for quashing of the Government circular dated 03.07.1999. Their case broadly is that there cannot be 100 per cent reservation for any class of employees even for transfer and such Government policy completely debars the petitioners therein from seeking any transfer to Gandhinagar Town at any point of time in their career. 8. Along the same line, Special Civil Application No. 10990 of 2001 and 10991 of 2001 came to be filed. In the meantime, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 filed one page petitions being Special Civil Application No. 13301 to 13334 of 2000. These petitions have been filed by one class of teachers who were opposing the Government policy of 03.07.1999. 9. In Special Civil Application Nos. 10990 of 2001 and 10991 of 2001, learned Single Judge of this Court passed order on 14.11.2001 issuing notice returnable on 12.12.2001. It was provided that in the meantime, it will be open for the petitioners to approach the concerned authority by way of detailed representation within one week. It was further provided that as and when such representation is received by the authority, the Authority will consider the same and place the order before the Court on 12.12.2001. 10. The said petitioners made representations as permitted by this Court. The State Government took into account their representations and issued a fresh circular dated 02.07.2002, which as noted above, has made substantial departure from the earlier Government policy on 03.07.1999 for the purpose of transfer of Teachers of Gandhinagar District. 11. 10. The said petitioners made representations as permitted by this Court. The State Government took into account their representations and issued a fresh circular dated 02.07.2002, which as noted above, has made substantial departure from the earlier Government policy on 03.07.1999 for the purpose of transfer of Teachers of Gandhinagar District. 11. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, as noted earlier, are the teachers who are stationed at Gandhinagar District and whose spouses are in Government or Panchayat Service and are stationed at Gandhinagar Town. These petitioners, therefore, were beneficiaries of the Government Policy of 03.07.1999. In fact, it is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the said policy, the State Government had already called for the applications from the interested teachers to be transferred to Gandhinagar Town. The petitioners had indicated their preference accordingly and the Government had also prepared a list of teachers to be transferred to Gandhinagar Town in their turn serially. 12. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, therefore, contend that they were waiting their turn for being posted at Gandhinagar when suddenly they came across the letter dated 02.07.2002 in which the Government has conveyed its decision to change the transfer policy and instead of hitherto prevailing policy of transferring only the teachers whose spouses are stationed at Gandhinagar and are employed in State of Panchayat Service, new policy of dividing the vacancies amongst three categories of teachers in ratio of 34 per cent, 33 per cent and 33 per cent, as noted above, has been evolved. These petitioners have, therefore, challenged the said communication dated 02.07.2002 in those petitions. 12.1. These petitioners broadly contend that pursuant to the earlier policy of 03.07.1999, applications were invited by the State Government for transferring the eligible teachers. The petitioners had applied pursuant to such advertisements and a list containing the names of the petitioners has been prepared by the State Government in July, 2000. They were waiting for the turn for being transferred when suddenly the Government changed the policy after hearing the rival group of teachers but without hearing the petitioners. 13. In Special Civil Applications No. 6505 of 2002, on 20.07.2002, the learned Single Judge of this Court while granting time to the State Government for taking instructions directed that status quo as on that date shall be maintained by the parties till next date. 13. In Special Civil Applications No. 6505 of 2002, on 20.07.2002, the learned Single Judge of this Court while granting time to the State Government for taking instructions directed that status quo as on that date shall be maintained by the parties till next date. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 30.07.2002. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20.07.2002 reads as follows:— “Learned Government Pleader Mr. A.D. Oza states that notice has been served on the respondent authorities only yesterday evening. He also states that the compilation supplied to the respondent is not legible and, therefore, time may be given. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned Advocate for petitioners states that he shall supply legible copy of the petition and its compilation. He also states that there is no objection to grant of time but prays that in the mean time the petitioners may be protected. As per the statement made by learned Advocate Mr. Pujara, the impugned policy is not implemented in case of the petitioners. However, Mr. A.D. Oza, learned G.P. is not able to make any statement in this regard. Hence, it is directed that status quo as on today shall be maintained by parties till next S.O. to 30.07.2002.” Detailed hearing thereafter, appears to have taken place on 03.12.2002. The learned Single Judge was pleased to admit the petition and order that the same be heard alongwith Special Civil Application No. 7704 of 2000. Considering that even under the impugned policy, 34 per cent of the total vacancies are to be filled by transferring teachers who are serving in Gandhinagar District and whose spouses are serving in Gandhinagar Town, whereas remaining vacancies are to be filled in by transferring other categories of teachers, learned Single Judge directed that pending the petition, the concerned authority may fill up 34 per cent of the vacancies in the cadre of Primary School Teachers existing in Gandhinagar Town by operating the list of Primary School Teachers seeking transfer to Gandhinagar Town (Annexure-E to the petition) prepared pursuant to the earlier Government Circular dated 03.07.1999 (Annexure-C to the petition). It was further provided that with respect to the rest of the vacancies in the said cadre, status quo ordered under the ad-interim order shall continue. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.12.2002 reads as follows:— “The draft amendment is allowed. It was further provided that with respect to the rest of the vacancies in the said cadre, status quo ordered under the ad-interim order shall continue. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.12.2002 reads as follows:— “The draft amendment is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within one week from today. Rule.—To be heard with Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 and other cognate writ petitions. The controversy is with regard to the filling up of the posts of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town by transfer. It appears that earlier the said posts were being filled up only by those Primary School Teachers who are serving in Gandhinagar District and whose spouse are serving in Gandhinagar, either under the State of Gujarat or in the Gandhinagar Panchayat and who are not transferrable. Under the impugned policy, the earlier policy has been modified to the effect that only 34% of the total vacancies shall be filled in by transfer of the above referred category of Primary School Teachers whose spouse are serving in Gandhinagar under the State Government. Whereas, 33% of the vacancies shall be filled in by other Primary School Teachers who are serving in Gandhinagar District and the rest of the 33% of the vacancies shall be filled in by transfer of such Primary School Teachers whose spouse are serving in Gandhinagar Town in various Boards/Corporation/Panchayat or who are affected by the acquisition of land. In the above circumstances, pending this petition, it is directed that the concerned authority may fill-up 34% of the vacancies in the cadre of Primary School Teachers existing in the Gandhinagar Town by operating the list of Primary School Teachers seeking transfer to the Gandhinagar Town (Annexure-E to the petition) prepared pursuant to the policy dated 03.07.1999 (Annexure-C to the petition). With respect to rest of the vacancies in the said cadre, the status quo ordered under the ad-interim order shall continue. The registry is directed to post all these petitions for final hearing on 16.01.2003.” 14. It appears that on 20.10.2002, Respondent No. 3 caused an advertisement to be issued in the local newspapers calling for eligible candidates to apply for the post of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town. The advertisement was for filling up of 27 vacancies. 15. The registry is directed to post all these petitions for final hearing on 16.01.2003.” 14. It appears that on 20.10.2002, Respondent No. 3 caused an advertisement to be issued in the local newspapers calling for eligible candidates to apply for the post of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town. The advertisement was for filling up of 27 vacancies. 15. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 were of the opinion that the attempt on the part of the Respondent No. 3 to fill up the vacancies was opposed to the stay granted by this Court on 20.07.2002 as modified by the order dated 03.12.2002. Learned Advocate Shri K.B. Pujara for the petitioners, therefore, issued a notice to all the respondents on 30.12.2002. In the said notice, it was pointed out to the Authorities that the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 is pending before the High Court and the next date of hearing has been fixed on 16.01.2003. By way of interim directions, the Court has provided for filling up of 34 per cent vacancies from the list of 107 candidates prepared and for the remaining vacancies, status quo has been directed to the maintained. It is stated that the candidates are called for personal interview by issuing letters dated 21.12.2002 which action is illegal and is also opposed to the order passed by the High Court. It was pointed out that despite the order of the Court 34 per cent of the vacancies are not filled up from the category of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002. He, therefore, called upon the authorities to abide by the order passed by the High Court. 16. Shri A.A. Nagori, Additional Secretary to the Education Department, State Government, replied to the notice issued by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Such a reply was given on 31.12.2002. He in fact, indicated that so far as new appointments of Vidya Sahayaks are concerned, he has personally given direction on 31.12.2002 to the Director of Primary Education to instruct local officials of Gandhinagar not to hold any camp without the Court’s final directions. He indicated that quite apart from the Court orders, as per the Government policy from the Court orders, as per the Government policy direct recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks is not done in Gandhinagar city. He indicated that quite apart from the Court orders, as per the Government policy from the Court orders, as per the Government policy direct recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks is not done in Gandhinagar city. In short, he whole-heartedly agreed with the stand of the petitioners that fresh recruitment could not take place in the face of the order of the Court. 17. Despite legal notice issued by the learned Advocate for the petitioners and despite the stand of the State Government, as noted hereinabove, it appears that the Director of Primary Education proceeded ahead with the selection process and eventually issued appointment orders in favour of 25 Vidya Sahayaks. I will go into such appointments at a slightly later stage. However, at this stage, suffice it to notice that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 filed certain Civil Applications opposing the attempt on the part of the Director of Primary Education to make appointment and eventually filed a contempt petition being Misc. Civil Application No. 1523 of 2003 which contempt petition after being placed before the Division Bench came to be placed before the learned Single Judge by an order dated 29.07.2003. It is the case of the applicants of the Contempt Application that the respondents therein have flouted the orders passed by this Court and that there was stay granted against filling up of the vacancies in Gandhinagar except for filling of 34 percent existing vacancies by way of transfer from amongst the list of 107 candidates already prepared by the State Government. It is also the case of the applicants that despite the order of the Court being brought to the notice of the Authorities, they have issued the appointment orders. 18. The State Government, therefore, under the threat of impending contempt proceedings, issued orders dated 18.10.2003 and 20.10.2003 by which the newly appointed Vidya Sahayaks came to be transferred out of Gandhinagar Town and they were ordered to be placed at various places in Gandhinagar District. This gave rise to the filing of Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003. These petitioners contend that they have been appointed pursuant to the selection process carried out by the Authorities. They pointed out that an advertisement dated 22.10.2002 was issued in the newspapers. They had applied pursuant to the said advertisement. They were aspiring to be appointed as Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town. These petitioners contend that they have been appointed pursuant to the selection process carried out by the Authorities. They pointed out that an advertisement dated 22.10.2002 was issued in the newspapers. They had applied pursuant to the said advertisement. They were aspiring to be appointed as Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town. It is their case that the advertisement itself records that the posts are of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town. They also pointed out that the petitioners were appointed by the Authorities in July, 2003 to the post of Vidya Sahayaks. Such appointment orders carried a specific condition that their appointments are only for specified village/area and that they will not be transferred outside. They, therefore, oppose the Government stand of transferring them outside the Town of Gandhinagar. They strongly urge that it is not open for the State Government to transfer them out of Gandhinagar Town and place them anywhere in Gandhinagar District. They contend that there is nothing wrong in the orders of their appointment. They urge that their appointment orders are not opposed to any of the stay orders granted by this Court. 19. It is in this factual background that various litigations have been initiated by rival groups. 20. In so far as Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 and connected matters are concerned, the State Government has taken into consideration the representation made by the petitioners therein and evolved a new policy vide circular dated 02.07.2002. By this new policy, pattern of transferring only those teachers who are stationed at Gandhinagar District and whose spouses are working in Gandhinagar Town in the State or Panchayat service was changed. Under the new policy more equal distribution of available vacancies is provided by the State Government. As noted, 34 per cent of the vacancies are ear-marked for transferring the teachers whose spouses are stationed at Gandhinagar and working in State or Panchayat service, 33 per cent vacancies are earmarked for transferring teachers stationed in Gandhinagar District on the basis of their seniority and remaining 33 per cent of the vacancies are ear-marked for transferring those teachers who belong to the affected family category and whose spouses are stationed at Gandhinagar in any of the Boards, Corporations of the Government or in the Panchayat Service. Though the said circular states that this in an interim policy subject to the final decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10990 of 2001 and 10991 of 2001, learned AGP Ms. Shah under instructions stated that this is the current policy of the State Government and if not found impermissible or illegal, the State Government would follow the said policy of transfer. In that view of the matter, so far as the grievance of the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 7764 of 2000 and connected petitions of similarly situated employees is concerned, the same has become infructuous. It is also not the case of these petitioners that there should be total reservation in their favour and that no other category should be considered by the State Government for transfer and posting in Gandhinagar Town. In that view of the matter, in so far as the grievance arising in Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 and connected petitions is concerned, I do not need to examine the same any further. 21. The internal conflict between the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 and the resultant proceedings leading to filing of Misc. Civil Application No. 1523 of 2003, however, need adjudication. 22. Before dealing with the rival submissions and attempting to decide the legal controversies, certain factual aspects need to be gone into at a greater length. 23. As noted earlier, Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 has been filed by the Primary School Teachers who seek posting at Gandhinagar Town by transfer. These teachers have their spouses stationed at Gandhinagar in State or Panchayat service. They claim that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Government, they requested for transfer to Gandhinagar. A list was also prepared way back in the year 2000. The names of the petitioners were included in the said list. Without operating the list fully, the Government suddenly changed the policy of transfer. Such policy was evolved through circular dated 02.07.2002. The circular was the consequence of Special Civil Application Nos. 10990 of 2001 and 10991 of 1991 having been filed by the rival group of Teachers. The petitioners therein were heard by the State Government and their representations were taken into account. Such policy was evolved through circular dated 02.07.2002. The circular was the consequence of Special Civil Application Nos. 10990 of 2001 and 10991 of 1991 having been filed by the rival group of Teachers. The petitioners therein were heard by the State Government and their representations were taken into account. Whereas the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 who were already placed in the list for being transferred and who were waiting for the transfer orders were not even heard. The earlier policy which was to their advantage was modified without hearing them. When these petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 were busy battling out with the rival group of teachers in Special Civil Application No. 7764 of 2000 and other connected matters, the Director of Primary Education had issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 21.10.2002 for filling up 27 posts of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town by fresh recruitment. It is not in dispute that since Vidya Sahayaks occupy the vacancies of Primary Teachers and eventually after a period of two years, they would be regularised on such posts, any such appointmentd would eat into the vacancies meant for transfer of the teachers from Gandhinagar District to Gandhinagar Town. 24. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 had got orders from this Court on 20.07.2002 as modified subsequently by the order dated 03.12.2002, contents of which I have already noted hereinabove. On the basis of such orders, it was the case of the petitioners that the Director of Primary Education could not have proceeded to fill up the vacancies by fresh appointments since this Court had directed the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the vacancies. Civil Application No. 3029 of 2003, therefore, came to be filed in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court the attempt on the part of the respondents to fill up the vacancies and it was prayed that the opponents be punished for willful disobedience of the Court’s order dated 03.12.2002. Rule was issued in the said application on 02.05.2003 making it returnable on 24.06.2003. However, no further order appears to have been passed nor any specific interim directions granted. 25. Rule was issued in the said application on 02.05.2003 making it returnable on 24.06.2003. However, no further order appears to have been passed nor any specific interim directions granted. 25. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 thereafter, filed Civil Application No. 8267 of 2002 praying that the appointments pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2002 be quashed as being in contravention of the interim order dated 03.12.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6565 of 2002. Rule was made returnable on 29.10.2002 by the order dated 25.10.2002. However, no further order appears to have been passed in this regard. In the meantime, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 filed Civil Applications for being joined as party-respondents in the main proceedings as well as in the Civil Applications. Such applications were granted. 26. Finally, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 filed a contempt petition being Misc. Civil Application No. 1523 of 2003. They complained that the respondents have flouted the interim orders passed by this Court. They urged that in the wake of the orders passed by this Court on 03.12.2002 in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, appointment orders could not have been issued in favour of the candidates seeking appointment on the post of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2002. They pointed out that this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities. 27. Through the Misc. Civil Application as well as through the pleadings in the main petition, it is the case of the applicants of the Contempt Application that the respondents and in particular Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have flouted with impunity the interim orders passed by this Court. It is the case of the applicants that surreptitiously a petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003. The said petition was filed by one of the candidates seeking appointment as Vidya Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2002. The petition was placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.07.2003 wherein the learned Single Judge while issuing notice to the respondents recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that no reasons have been given by the respondents for not holding the interview and why the interview earlier fixed was postponed. The petition was placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.07.2003 wherein the learned Single Judge while issuing notice to the respondents recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that no reasons have been given by the respondents for not holding the interview and why the interview earlier fixed was postponed. While issuing notice, therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to disclose the reasons for not holding the interview on the date declared by the respondents and if there is no reason to postpone the interview, then to take the interview as earlier advised by the respondents on or before 18.07.2003. It is the case of the applicants that pursuant to the said order, an Officer remained present before the Court and as emerging from the order dated 21.07.2003, it was conveyed to the Court that the Director of Primary Education granted permission for completing the process of recruitment for appointment to the post of Vidya Sahayaks which is the subject matter of the petition, within 10 days. The learned Single Judge, therefore, in view of the letter dated 21.07.2003 addressed to the Government Pleader’s Office, directed the respondents to complete the recruitment process for the post of Vidya Sahayaks within 10 days as sanctioned by the Director of Primary Education. 28. It is the case of these applicants that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 on 03.12.2002 was never brought to the notice of the Court when the Court was passing the said order in Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003 on 21.07.2003. It is further the case of the applicants that the nature of the interim order dated 03.12.2002 and its effect on any attempt to fill up the vacancies through fresh recruitment was well known to the Director of Primary Education. This was in fact brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioners on more occasions than one. In fact, earlier, precisely on account of the objections raised by the petitioners, the selection process was stalled. This was in fact brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioners on more occasions than one. In fact, earlier, precisely on account of the objections raised by the petitioners, the selection process was stalled. Subsequently, without any permission from the State Government or without informing the learned Judge taking up Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003, the Director appears to have unilaterally taken a decision to go ahead with the selection and appointments disregarding the interim order passed by this Court and even ignoring the stand of the State Government that such selection process cannot continue. Certain relevant material has been brought on record with respect to the nature of appointments made by the Director of Primary Education. To such material, reference will be made at a later stage. 29. As noted earlier, the appointments of Vidya Sahayaks granted by the Director of Primary Education received stiff opposition from the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002. The State Government, therefore, apprehending further proceedings of contempt, intervened. All the Vidya Sahayaks appointed in Gandhinagar Town pursuant to such selection process were ordered to be transferred outside Gandhinagar Town through orders passed in October, 2003. These orders came to be challenged by the fresh recruits in Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 and interim direction has been granted by this Court and that is how these petitioners are still continuing as Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town. In fact, it is the case of these petitioners in the said petition that many of them have been appointed as full time Primary Teachers on regular scale. 30. In this complex factual background, learned Advocates appearing for the parties have made detailed submissions. 14.03.2006 30. Appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, learned Advocate Shri Pujara submitted that the Government policy provided for filling up of vacancies of Primary School Teachers in Government Schools in Gandhinagar Town entirely through transfer of teachers serving in Gandhinagar District whose spouses are stationed in Gandhinagar Town and serving in State or Panchayat service. He submitted that the petitioners applied pursuant to the invitation made by the Government for being transferred to Gandhinagar. He submitted that the petitioners applied pursuant to the invitation made by the Government for being transferred to Gandhinagar. He submitted that a list was prepared and the petitioners were placed in the said list and they were waiting for transfers when without hearing the petitioners, after considering the representation of the rival group of teachers, the State Government suddenly changed the policy. In the new policy envisaged, vide circular dated 02.07.2002, instead of 100 per cent reservation in favour the teachers having spouses at Gandhinagar employed in State or Panchayat service, three different categories were envisaged. It is, therefore, contended that the policy decision of the Government dated 02.07.2002 is illegal and unlawful. 31. It is submitted that in any case, the same could not have been operated against the petitioners since the petitioners were waiting for their transfers pursuant to the list prepared by the State Government which is produced at Annexure-E to the petition. It was further contended that the petitioner should have been heard before the Government decided to change the then existing policy. Formulation of new policy by circular dated 02.07.2002, therefore, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners suffers from violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioners were not heard particularly so when the teachers belonging to the rival group were heard and their representations taken into consideration. 32. It was additionally contended that the petitioners had a right to be transferred to Gandhinagar Town in terms of the earlier policy of the year 1999. The petitioners had planned their career accordingly and some of them had joined the service on the basis of the expectation that in their turn some day they would be brought over to Gandhinagar Town. It is, therefore, contended that the State Government could not have changed the policy so abruptly as to give a go-by to the existing waiting list of transfers. 33. On behalf of the State Government, learned AGP Mrs. Shah supported the Government action. She submitted that no employee has a right to insist that he be posted at a particular place. The Government in its wisdom is free to evolve a policy in the interest of administration and in the interest of all concerned employees. It is for the Government to decide as to which teacher would be posted at which place in the general interest of the administration. The Government in its wisdom is free to evolve a policy in the interest of administration and in the interest of all concerned employees. It is for the Government to decide as to which teacher would be posted at which place in the general interest of the administration. It was submitted that considering the overall situation, the Government found it appropriate to include other categories also for request transfer. Earlier, it was found that only those teachers whose spouses are stationed at Gandhinagar in Government or Panchayat service were being considered for transfers. The Government, however, felt it necessary that cases of other categories of teachers also be taken into consideration for posting at Gandhinagar. She, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. 34. Learned Advocate Mrs. Mehta appearing with learned Advocate Shri Karia for the newly recruited teachers, who have been joined as party-respondents in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 also submitted that the petitioners have not made out any case. She submitted that since the appointments of her clients are made subject to the outcome of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, the said respondents would have a right to oppose the petition. She submitted that the Government policy of 100 per cent reservation for filling up the vacancies of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town through transfer from one particular category of teachers is unlawful and illegal and would not satisfy the test of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 35. In so far as the contempt proceedings are concerned, learned Advocate Shri Pujara submitted that the respondents were conscious about the orders passed by this Court and in particular the order dated 20.07.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: A.L. Dave, J.) as well as the subsequent order dated 03.12.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Miss R.M. Doshit, J.) by virtue of which certain interim directions were issued. The respondents, however, proceeded further with the selection process for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar. He submitted that at the very threshold the petitioners had objected to the proceedings being undertaken by the Director of Primary Education. Notices were issued specifically pointing out the above orders passed by this Court. The respondents, however, proceeded further with the selection process for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar. He submitted that at the very threshold the petitioners had objected to the proceedings being undertaken by the Director of Primary Education. Notices were issued specifically pointing out the above orders passed by this Court. The petitioners had objected to the advertisement being issued calling upon the eligible candidates to apply for the post of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar. It was precisely on account of these objections of the petitioners that at one stage, the entire selection process was stalled. Subsequently, however, without valid reasons, the Director of Primary Education revived the process and despite full knowledge of the orders passed by this Court and despite stiff resistance from the petitioners proceeded further to make appointment. He, therefore, submitted that appropriate steps be taken against the erring officials. 36. Learned AGP Ms. Shah, from the material on record, submitted that the Government’s stand in this regard is very clear. The Additional Secretary to the Education Department had in response to the notice issued by the learned Advocate for the petitioners clearly pointed out that the Government does not propose to take any action contrary to the orders passed by this Court. In fact, the stand of the Government is that the entire process could not have been undertaken in face of the orders of the Court. She had placed on record a communication dated 13.03.2006 received by her from the Under Secretary, Education Department indicating that the Government is contemplating taking necessary action against Shri R.K. Chaudhary, the then Director of Primary Education for violating the Court’s orders as well as the Government instructions. It was further pointed out by the learned AGP that at no stage the Government had given any instructions to the Director of Primary Education or any other officials to take any steps contrary to the Court’s orders. She pointed out that the reference made by the Director of Primary Education as well as other officials under him regarding instructions of the Hon’ble Minister for Education also clearly provides that further steps may be taken for making appointments if there is no stay from the Court. She, therefore, submitted that so far as the Secretary of the Education Department and the Hon’ble Minister are concerned, they have not flouted the orders of the Court willfully or otherwise. 37. She, therefore, submitted that so far as the Secretary of the Education Department and the Hon’ble Minister are concerned, they have not flouted the orders of the Court willfully or otherwise. 37. Learned Advocate Shri Munshaw on the basis of the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 5 contended before the Court that the said respondent has not committed any contempt. On the basis of the averments made in the affidavit, he submitted that the said respondent only acted as per the directions issued by the higher authorities. 38. Learned Advocate Shri Tandel appearing for Respondent No. 3, the then Director of Primary Education submitted that the said respondent has tendered unconditional apology in writing on oath for any mistake that might have been committed. He in fact, suggested that there has been some error on the part of the said Authority, however, he may be spared of the contempt proceedings since he had retired and also tendered an unconditional apology in writing. On behalf of his client learned Advocate Shri Tandel orally as well offered his unconditional apology to the Court for having taken certain steps which might have been contrary to the interim orders issued by this Court. He went to the extent of suggesting that the said respondent may even be asked to face departmental proceedings and only then the whole truth will come out. 39. Appearing for Respondent No. 4, Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt submitted that the said respondent has not committed any willful default. Relying on the affidavit in reply filed, she suggested that Respondent No. 4 herein was only acting as per the directives issued to him and he had no role to play in the final decision taken. 40. Appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 15325 of 2003 with learned Advocate Shri B.D. Karia, learned Counsel Mrs. K.A. Mehta submitted that the petitioners therein have been appointed through a regular selection process. Public advertisement was issued calling for eligible candidates to apply for the posts of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar. She submitted that the respondents committed no error in initiating and thereafter completing the selection process and appointing the petitioners to the post of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar. She submitted that the interim orders passed by this Court did not apply to the posts on which the petitioners have been appointed. She submitted that the respondents committed no error in initiating and thereafter completing the selection process and appointing the petitioners to the post of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar. She submitted that the interim orders passed by this Court did not apply to the posts on which the petitioners have been appointed. She attempted to suggest that this Court by orders dated 20.07.2002 and 03.12.2002 only directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the existing vacancies. She submitted that this Court never envisaged that direct selection and appointments cannot be made to the post of Vidya Sahayaks, that too on the vacancies which might arise in future. She further submitted that the Government had granted permission to fill up only 20 posts of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar by way of transfer. The interim orders mentioned hereinabove, therefore, would apply qua these posts and none other. Alternatively, she submitted that for future vacancies at least no provision was made by this Court in the said interim orders for maintaining status quo. 41. It was additionally contended that the Director of Primary Education had no obligation to obtain any permission from the State Government before making such appointments. The objection of the State Government that the orders of appointments were opposed to the stay granted by this Court and without permission of the Government, therefore, according to her is not valid. 42. It was further contended that the petitioners cannot be blamed for the appointments even if some error has crept in the initiation and completion of the selection process by some authorities. She further pointed out that the advertisement issued by the Director of Primary Education on 22.10.2002 clearly envisaged that the appointments are to be made for the post of Vidya Sahayaks in Gandhinagar Town. It was pursuant to this advertisement that all the petitioners had applied. They were qualified and duly selected having been found to be meritorious. They were, therefore, appointed by orders dated 30.07.2003. The said orders specified that their appointments are only for a particular area or Town and that they are not transferable. She, therefore, submitted that the State Government cannot now require the petitioners to discharge their duties outside Gandhinagar Town. She, therefore, submitted that the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the State Government transferring the petitioners outside of Gandhinagar should be set aside. 43. She, therefore, submitted that the State Government cannot now require the petitioners to discharge their duties outside Gandhinagar Town. She, therefore, submitted that the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the State Government transferring the petitioners outside of Gandhinagar should be set aside. 43. As against this, learned AGP Ms. Shah submitted that the appointments of the petitioners were not entirely valid. The director of Primary Education did not take necessary permission from the State Government before making such appointments. In any case, there is no policy of the State Government to resort to direct recruitment for the vacancies of Primary School Teachers in Gandhinagar Town. She also suggested that the Director of Primary Education ought not to have proceeded further with the selection process in face of the interim orders passed by this Court. 44. Learned Advocate Shri Pujara appearing for the rival group of teachers also opposed the petition. He submitted that the petitioners were appointed through a selection process which was totally irregular and opposed to the interim orders passed by this Court. He submitted that the vacancies in Gandhinagar Town should be kept reserved for being filled in only by way of transfer as per the Government Policy. Resorting to direct recruitment was, therefore, not permissible. The State Government, therefore, correctly transferred the petitioners to make way for the rightful claimants for being posted at Gandhinagar. 45. Learned Advocate Shri Pujara also submitted that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 obtained their appointments through fraud. He submitted that the Director of Primary Education was conscious of the interim orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, despite which a petition came to be filed for and on behalf of one of the candidates aspiring for appointment. The said Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003 came to be disposed of in a summary fashion when on behalf of the Director of Primary Education, an assurance was given to the Court that the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued on 22.10.2002 will be completed in shortest possible time. It is contended that before the learned Single Judge (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.) the earlier proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and other matters were never brought to the notice. It is contended that before the learned Single Judge (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.) the earlier proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and other matters were never brought to the notice. He submitted that the learned Single Judge had specifically while issuing notice on 11.07.2003 asked the respondents why the selection process was postponed. These respondents owed a duty to the Court to point out the full facts. Without bringing full facts to the notice of the Court, an order came to be passed on the basis of which the appointments were made. Such appointments were, therefore, obtained by the petitioners through misrepresentation and fraud and the same, therefore, cannot be sustained. In respect of the contention, learned Advocate Shri Pujara has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 45.1. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra G. Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 (4) SCC 216 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that when an order is obtained by abusing the process of the Court or playing fraud by collusion, such an order should not be allowed to remain in operation for a moment. 45.2. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 45.3. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaurao Degdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (7) SCC 605 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to elaborate the concept of fraud and effect thereof on litigation. 46. Having thus noted the factual and legal controversies involved in the petitions and the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, I would now proceed to decide the issues arising in these proceedings. 47. 46. Having thus noted the factual and legal controversies involved in the petitions and the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, I would now proceed to decide the issues arising in these proceedings. 47. With respect to Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002, it can be seen that the petitioners are opposing the Government policy by which the earlier policy of the year 1999 was modified. The impugned circular dated 02.07.2002 provided for distribution of vacancies in Gandhinagar Town in the cadre of Primary School Teachers to be filed in by three different categories of teachers discharging their duties in Gandhinagar District. The petitioners herein belong to the category who now receive 34 per cent weightage for transfer. The earlier policy of 03.07.1999 provided for 100 per cent reservation for transfer in their favour. 48. Before deciding the validity of the challenge of the petitioners, let me examine the nature of rights enjoyed by a Government servant for being posted at a particular place. 48.1. In the case of Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Courts should not interfere with the transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. It was observed that a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. 48.2. In the case of Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, AIR 1992 SC 519, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that no doubt ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. 48.2. In the case of Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, AIR 1992 SC 519, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that no doubt ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. Hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of other’s posting. It was further observed that no doubt, the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:— “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of All-India Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of other’s posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an All-India Service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of All-India Service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the Officers’ grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of All India Service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt, the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect alongwith the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees” 48.3. In the case of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1236 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. 48.4. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. 48.4. In the decision of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. It was further observed that the guidelines provided that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however, does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. 48.5. In the decision of State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily, the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. 49. It can thus be seen that an employee has no right to insist that he may be placed at a particular place and that the Government must consider his case for transfer on the ground that he has his spouse working at a particular station. Even his right to insist that the Government policy be implemented without any flexibility has extremely limited validity. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of decisions, some of which have been referred to hereinabove, even in case of policy of such a nature, administrative exigency always takes precedence and no Government employee can have an indefeasible legally enforceable right to insist that he must be posted at a particular place. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of decisions, some of which have been referred to hereinabove, even in case of policy of such a nature, administrative exigency always takes precedence and no Government employee can have an indefeasible legally enforceable right to insist that he must be posted at a particular place. The petitioners herein who are employed as Teachers in Gandhinagar District are insisting that they must be placed at Gandhinagar Town since the Government policy so provided for. In fact, the petitioners go a step further and oppose the change in the policy which envisages that such request transfers be considered not only from amongst the category of teachers to which the petitioners belong, but from other categories as well who also face similar hardships. The rights of the petitioners, therefore, are extremely limited. Ordinarily, the petitioners have no right to claim that such policy must be implemented ignoring the administrative exigencies. In fact, in the present case, they challenge the policy which now envisages more categories for consideration of such request transfer. I am afraid, the legal rights cannot reach to such a extent where they can prevent the Government from reconsidering the policy on just grounds. 50. In the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the Government policy. In the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1344 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Para 12 that the scope of judicial review of the Government policy is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such matters. 51. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such matters. 51. It can, therefore, be seen that this Court would not interfere with the policy decision of the Government unless and until the same is found to be opposed to the Constitution or the statutory provision or the same is wholly arbitrary or illegal. Which employee should be placed at which place and to what extent the hardships faced by the employees should be mitigated in what manner is mainly a policy decision of the Government to be taken keeping in mind not only the interest of such employees but also of the administration. The endeavour to keep husband and wife together at same station is a laudable cause. However, to be placed at the same place cannot be the only or the paramount look out for an employee who has accepted a transferable service. The Government has its own limitations, has its own policy and its own administrative requirements to fulfill while envisaging a particular policy. Therefore, instead of reserving all vacancies of Gandhinagar Town for one single category of teachers, if the Government found it necessary to have a wider base for considering the request transfers of other category of teachers also, no exception can be had to such a policy decision. The opposition of these teachers to the clause of the new policy by which in their category transfer is to be effused on the basis of the seniority of posting in Gandhinagar District is equally baseless. In the earlier policy, transfers were being granted on the basis of seniority in service. In the new policy this has been changed. I find no reason to interfere here also. If the Government found that giving preference to those teachers who are waiting for long to get closer to their families and not to those who have longer service, no objection to such a policy can be sustained. In fact it appears to be more equitable method of considering requests for transfers. Additionally learned AGP Ms. Shah points out that station seniority governs such request transfers in other Districts. 52. In fact it appears to be more equitable method of considering requests for transfers. Additionally learned AGP Ms. Shah points out that station seniority governs such request transfers in other Districts. 52. While framing a policy, principles of natural justice, obviously have no role to play. Without hearing the petitioners, it was always open for the State Government to envisage a policy and to have the same implemented. By taking into consideration the representation of one set of employees and re-examining the existing policy which excluded such class of teachers from considering request transfer, if the Government found it necessary to modify the policy, I do not find that any illegality has been committed. 53. In the case of Balco Employees Union vs. Union of India, (Supra) the Hon’ble Court held in Para 57 that even though the employees of the company may have an interest in seeing as to how the Company is managed, it will not be possible to accept the contentions that in the process of disinvestment, the principles of natural justice would be applicable and that the workers or for that matter any other party having an interest therein, would have a right of being heard. It was further held, that it is desirable that there should be wide range of consultations including considering any representations which may have been filed, but there was no provision in law which would require a hearing to be granted before taking a policy decision. In exercise of executive powers, policy decisions have to be taken from time to time. It will be impossible and impracticable to give a formal hearing to those who may be affected whenever a policy decision is taken. One of the objects of giving a hearing in application of the principles of natural justice is to see that an illegal action or decision does not take place. Any wrong order may adversely affect a person and it is essentially for this reason that a reasonable opportunity may have to be granted before passing of an administrative order. In case of the policy decision, however, it is impracticable and at time against the public interest to do so, but this does not mean that a policy decision which is contrary to law cannot be challenged. Not giving the workmen an opportunity of being heard cannot per se be a ground of vitiating the decision. 54. In case of the policy decision, however, it is impracticable and at time against the public interest to do so, but this does not mean that a policy decision which is contrary to law cannot be challenged. Not giving the workmen an opportunity of being heard cannot per se be a ground of vitiating the decision. 54. The petitioners who were placed in the waiting list of transfers on the basis of the earlier policy have no indefeasible right to be transferred even when the policy was changed. Simply by finding place in the list for transfers in due course as per the policy, the petitioners had not acquired any legal right to insist that the list be first exhausted before effecting any change in the policy. Courts have consistently held that persons included in the waiting list or even select list have no indefeasible right to be appointed to the post in question. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjoy Bhattacharjee vs. Union of India, 1997 (4) SCC 283 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a candidate who is in the waiting list has no right to appointment. If that be so in case of appointments, can a person who is placed in the list for granting request transfer claim a vested right to be so transferred? Obviously not. He may at best have a right to be considered for transfer in his turn as long as the policy is in force and to oppose denial of such a right arbitrarily but no more. 55. I am equally not impressed by the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that some of the petitioners had planned their career in such a manner that they had harboured a hope that as per the existing policy, one day they would be brought over to Gandhinagar Town. Such an argument cannot stand the legal test for variety of reasons. First and foremost, it may be noted that prior to the policy of July 1999, the Government policy envisaged a certain percentage for transfer of teachers whose spouses are stationed at Gandhinagar in Government or Panchayat Service. The policy of July 1999 removed certain categories from consideration of transfers and made all vacancies of Gandhinagar Town available to the category to which the petitioners belong. The policy of July 1999 removed certain categories from consideration of transfers and made all vacancies of Gandhinagar Town available to the category to which the petitioners belong. These petitioners who are claiming transfers on the basis of policy of July, 1999 and on the strength of their seniority obviously were in Government service long before July, 1999 at which time there was no promise from the Government that all vacancies in Gandhinagar Town will be reserved for their transfers. Secondly, it is always open for the Government to change any policy decision as per the changing requirements and changing philosophy. No citizen or an employee has a right to insist that the Government cannot change its policy. No legal right would flow from the policy which was prevailing at a particular time which cannot be taken away if later on the Government finds it necessary to make modifications in its policies. Lastly, no case for promissory estoppel has been set up. In any case, I doubt whether such an argument can be advanced in service jurisprudence particularly in the factual background of the present case. 56. In the case of Union of India vs. International Trading Co., 2003 (5) SCC 437 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court turned down the plea of the petitioners for being governed by the earlier policy on the ground of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel. It was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot come in the way of public interest and that the public interest should prevail over private interest. It was found that there was conscious policy decision taken by the Government and there was no statutory compulsion to act contrary. It was, therefore, held that the parties did not acquire any right for renewal of licence. 57. In view of the above observations, I do not find that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 have made any case for challenging the legality of the Government policy dated 02.07.2002. Their petition, therefore, must fail. 58. With respect to the contempt proceedings, it may be noted that number of factors will suggest that the Authorities were conscious about the orders passed by this Court on 20.07.2002 and 03.12.2002. Their petition, therefore, must fail. 58. With respect to the contempt proceedings, it may be noted that number of factors will suggest that the Authorities were conscious about the orders passed by this Court on 20.07.2002 and 03.12.2002. Upon the Director of Primary Education publishing an advertisement on 20.10.2002, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 had brought the entire background to the notice of the Authorities. That included the Secretary to the Education Department as well as the Director of Primary Education. The Additional Secretary of the Education Department so much so corresponded with the learned Advocate for the petitioners and indicated that the Government does not wish to contravene any of the orders of the Court. In fact, it was the stand of the Government that such selection process cannot proceed further. Not only at that stage, but even at subsequent stages also, the Director of Primary Education was actually conscious of the stay order granted by this Court. This Court had categorically issued a status quo order qua the vacancies. First order was passed on 20.07.2002 which has already been reproduced hereinabove. This order was somewhat modified by the subsequent order of 03.12.2002. It was specifically provided that 34 per cent of existing vacancies may be filled up by resorting to transfer from the list at Annexure-E to Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and for the remaining vacancies, status quo order shall continue. To my mind, there is no scope for any confusion about the implication of such orders passed by this Court. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Advocate Mrs. Mehta that this Court did not provide for stay against direct recruitment and that orders passed at best must be understood to have directed to maintain status quo for vacancies meant for transfer. Firstly, official respondents have not come out with any such clear distinction. Secondly, such an issue was never before this Court when this Court was passing those orders. Thirdly, this Court passed a clear order and my task is to interpret the said orders and not philosophy behind passing the order. Considering from all aspects of the matter, I find that the Director of Primary Education ought not to have proceeded further with the selection process. 59. Thirdly, this Court passed a clear order and my task is to interpret the said orders and not philosophy behind passing the order. Considering from all aspects of the matter, I find that the Director of Primary Education ought not to have proceeded further with the selection process. 59. Before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003 also an undue haste was shown by some of the respondents. This Court clearly directed the respondents to indicate the reasons for postponement of the selection process after once having issued the advertisement. By an order dated 11.07.2003 this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.) inquired with the respondents the reason for not holding the interview on the date declared by the respondents and if there is no reason to postpone the interview, then to take interview at an earlier date. In response to this specific query by the Court, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to point out the existence of the interim orders passed by this Court. Whether despite the said orders, this Court would have directed the respondents to proceed further with the selection process finding that the interim orders would not preclude the respondents from completing the selection process is a matter not for me to deliberate upon. The fact remains that without bringing these orders to the notice of the Court, on behalf of the Director of Primary Education, it was conveyed to the Court that the selection process will be completed within a period of 10 days. It is on the basis of the said stand that the Court directed that appropriate steps by taken accordingly. This Court, therefore, while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003 by an order dated 21.07.2003 had not given any independent directions for completing the selection process. The directions of the Court must be seen in light of the stand adopted on behalf of the Director of Primary Education. It was conveyed to the Court that the selection process will be completed within 10 days and the Court put its weight behind such a stand of the said respondent and directed the respondents to complete the process accordingly. 60. It was conveyed to the Court that the selection process will be completed within 10 days and the Court put its weight behind such a stand of the said respondent and directed the respondents to complete the process accordingly. 60. In fact, the rozkam of 18.07.2003 and 19.07.2003, which has been produced by Respondent No. 5 of the contempt proceedings alongwith his affidavit in reply dated 27.02.2006, would suggest that the parties were well aware about the interim orders passed by this Court and at one stage had stayed their hands off on account of such interim orders. If that be so, this factor ought to have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge while deciding Special Civil Application No. 9737 of 2003 particularly when a specific query was raised as to why earlier the selection process was postponed. 61. Sum total of the above observations is that there is surely something more than meet the eyes. Respondent No. 5 has filed a detailed affidavit and made his stand clear. He was the Administrative Officer at the relevant time. He was certainly not a part of the decision making process. He, therefore, cannot be hauled up for willful disobedience of the Court’s orders. Equally, the Government Authorities i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have all through struck to the stand that the interim orders of the Court are required to be adhered to. They have, therefore, not breached any of the orders of the Court. Respondent No. 6, the then Hon’ble Minister for Education also had apparently no direct role to play in the selection process. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have contended that the Hon’ble Minister requested them to complete the selection process if there was no stay from the Court. The Minister, therefore, did not give any directions to issue any order of appointment contrary to Court’s orders. I find that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, ought not to have gone against the orders of the Court. Insofar as the contempt proceedings are concerned, both the respondents have tendered their unconditional apology on oath. Respondent No. 3 whose conduct is under serious doubt has since then retired. He has in his affidavit in reply shown regret and tendered unconditional apology and also through his learned Advocate offered his regret and apologised again. Insofar as the contempt proceedings are concerned, both the respondents have tendered their unconditional apology on oath. Respondent No. 3 whose conduct is under serious doubt has since then retired. He has in his affidavit in reply shown regret and tendered unconditional apology and also through his learned Advocate offered his regret and apologised again. Against a retired employee who has shown regrets, therefore, I do not propose to proceed further at least in the contempt proceedings. 62. The matter, however, does not and cannot end here. As noted earlier, under suspicious circumstances the selection process against the orders passed by this Court and against the directives of the State Government was continued and culminated. It will be for the State Government to inquire into these aspects of the matter and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. For the above purpose, the Government shall entrust the task of holding a preliminary inquiry to an officer of the level of Secretary. Such inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the basis of the material that may be available, it will be for the Government to take further steps as may be found necessary and in particular the question of doubtful integrity will be investigated. With these observations and directions, contempt proceedings are closed. 63. So far as Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioners therein might have received appointments contrary to certain interim orders of this Court and also contrary to the directives of the State Government. However, the question is whether such appointments were wholly illegal or not. Now when I find that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 have not made out any case for interference, it is necessary to examine whether the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 were appointed in a manner which is wholly illegal and impermissible under the rules and regulations. The stand of the petitioners herein is that direct selection is permissible and in any case no sanction is necessary from the State Government. The stand of the petitioners herein is that direct selection is permissible and in any case no sanction is necessary from the State Government. The contention of the State Government is that in Gandhinagar Town there is no scope for resorting to direct recruitment and the Director of Primary Education was in any case not authorized to make selection and appointment without sanction of the State Government. However, these aspects of the matter are not brought on record by either of the parties. In any case, the appointments were made by the Director of Primary Education in favour of the petitioners. It is impossible for this Court to conclude that all the petitioners were responsible for obtaining orders from the Director of Primary Education and they were party to side-step the Court’s orders. It is entirely possible that some or may be all the petitioners were not to be personally blamed for such appointment procedure. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court, for want of sufficient material, to conclude that their appointments were illegal and ab initio void. 64. Considering the nature of appointments and considering that such appointments were made on vacancies of Gandhinagar Town where the policy of the State Government is to accommodate teachers on transfers, it was put to the learned Advocates for the petitioners whether the petitioners would be willing to discharge their duties in Gandhinagar District and not stand on their right to be stationed only in Gandhinagar Town. Learned Counsel Mrs. Mehta, however, stated before the Court that the petitioners would stand on their legal rights and would not be willing to discharge their duties outside of Gandhinagar Town. 65. In view of the above background, if one peruses the advertisement dated 22.10.2002 and the appointment orders, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioners were made only for Gandhinagar Town. In face of the appointments, the State Government could not have transferred them outside of Gandhinagar Town. Insofar as the challenge to their transfer is concerned, therefore, the petitioners have made out a good case. However, matter does not end there. Now that the petitioners have taken a stand of all or nothing, it will be for the State Government to inquire into the nature of their appointments. Such steps cannot be taken without hearing the petitioners. Insofar as the challenge to their transfer is concerned, therefore, the petitioners have made out a good case. However, matter does not end there. Now that the petitioners have taken a stand of all or nothing, it will be for the State Government to inquire into the nature of their appointments. Such steps cannot be taken without hearing the petitioners. Even their transfers could not have been resorted to without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners since their transfers were opposed to one of the conditions of their appointment which clearly envisages that they will not be posted outside the area where they are being appointed. It will be, therefore, open to the State Government to take appropriate steps after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in this regard. If it is found that the appointments were contrary to the Government policy and contrary to the requirements of sanction from the State Government, it will be open for the State Government to terminate their services after following due process of law. However, until such time that the Government takes decision in this regard, their transfers by virtue of the impugned orders cannot be permitted. In the result, Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 succeeds to the above limited extent. 66. In view of the above discussion, following orders are passed:— (i) Special Civil Application No. 7704 of 2000 with Special Civil Application Nos. 13301 to 13334 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 10990 and 10991 of 2001 are disposed of as having become infrustuous. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (ii) Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief is vacated. (iii) Special Civil Application No. 15325 of 2003 is allowed to the extent mentioned in Para 62 of the judgment. Subject to the observations made in Para 62 of the judgment, rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (iv) Misc. Civil Application No. 1523 of 2003 is disposed of subject to the observations made in Para. (v) Civil Application No. 8267 of 2002 and 3029 of 2003 are disposed of in view of the orders passed in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and in Misc. Civil Application No. 1523 of 2003. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (v) Civil Application No. 8267 of 2002 and 3029 of 2003 are disposed of in view of the orders passed in Special Civil Application No. 6505 of 2002 and in Misc. Civil Application No. 1523 of 2003. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. * * * * *