JUDGMENT :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.) The writ petitioner Association which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, consists of members who are B.T. Teachers working in Elementary Education department. It is stated that 12,000 B.T. Teachers were appointed during 2004-06 in Middle Schools, High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools. Earlier B.T. Teachers were appointed through Employment Exchange. 'Teachers Recruitment Board' method of selection came into existence in 2004 and the members of the petitioner Association selected through written examinations were appointed as B.T. Teachers. The said 12,000 teachers appointed in Middle Schools as per G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department, dated 27.6.2003 have been paid consolidated pay and their rank list has also been issued. On 1.6.2006 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.6.2006, the services of teachers appointed in Middle Schools were regularised and they are coming under the control of Elementary Education Department. The other B.T. Teachers appointed in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools are coming under the control of Director of School Education. 2. The case of the petitioner is that being B.T. Assistants appointed in Middle Schools, they have no chance of promotion while B.T. Teachers appointed in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools have already been promoted. Some of B.T. Teachers appointed in Middle Schools under the control of Elementary Education Department requested for unit transfer from Elementary Education to School Education. It is the case of the petitioner that more than 5,000 B.T. Teachers have already obtained No Objection Certificate from the Director of Elementary Education for the purpose of unit transfer from Elementary Education to School Education. B.T. Teachers who are working in Elementary Education Department were called for counselling for the unit transfer on 29.5.2008. 3. According to the petitioner, the B.T. Teachers appointed in Elementary Education Department was made on 1.6.2006 and the probation period completed on 30.5.2008. The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents have wantonly conducted counselling on 29.5.2008 to neglect B.T. Teachers in Elementary Education Department and therefore, the B.T. Teachers in Elementary Education Department have been deprived of participating in the counselling. Presently, the Government has called for 6500 B.T. Teachers from Employment Exchange Office for recruitment of teachers based on Employment Exchange seniority. Presently, the Government has called for 6500 B.T. Teachers from Employment Exchange Office for recruitment of teachers based on Employment Exchange seniority. If the appointments are made, the prospects of teachers like the members of petitioner Association in Elementary Education Department for being transferred to School Education Department will be blocked. The members of the petitioner Association have sent representation on 8.11.2008 narrating the irregularities and contradictions and also the sufferings likely to be undergone by them. Since the representation has not been considered, the Association has filed this writ petition for writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct fresh counselling for unit transfer in respect of B.T. Teachers who are working in Elementary Education Department to School Education Department in all over the State of Tamil Nadu. 4. While admitting the writ petition, this Court by order dated 19.11.2008, directed the respondents to maintain status quo. 5. The third respondent, Director of School Education has filed counter affidavit along with the vacate-stay petition. It is the case of the third respondent that B.T. Assistants are being appointed in Secondary Grade Posts belonging to 6 to 8 classes as per G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (Budget) Department dated 27.6.2003. The recruitment was monitored by Teachers Recruitment Board. The above B.Ed. Teachers were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.4000/-and subsequently, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.6.2006 regularised their services from 1.6.2006 in B.T. Assistant posts. During 2008-09 the Government issued norms for counselling for transfer of teachers. As per the norms, teachers transferred from one unit to another unit will be placed as junior most person in the unit/Department to which they are transferred and they cannot claim seniority in the parent department. Another condition prescribed for the unit transfer as per State and Subordinate Service Rules is the completion of probation by the incumbent applied for unit transfer. In the case of the members of writ petitioner Association, their probation completed on 31.5.2008 while counselling was called for on 29.5.2008 and therefore, it is the case of respondents that under G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education dated 27.6.2003, it was ordered to appoint B.T. Assistants in the place of Secondary Grade posts in resultant vacancies. 6. In G.O.Ms.No.209, School Education dated 8.5.1997, the Government prescribed conditions for unit transfer that the transferee should not claim lien in his parent department. 6. In G.O.Ms.No.209, School Education dated 8.5.1997, the Government prescribed conditions for unit transfer that the transferee should not claim lien in his parent department. The completion of probation in the present post, is also a necessary condition, as prescribed in Rule 2(15) to Preliminary Rule to General Rule for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. The members of the petitioner Association were appointed in Elementary Education Department on consolidated pay of Rs.4000/-and they were recruited by Teachers Recruitment Board on the basis of marks obtained in written examinations and they were placed in various departments, viz., School Education Department, Elementary Education Department, etc., according to their order of merit. Inasmuch as the members of the petitioner Association were appointed in Elementary Education Department they cannot claim themselves as so meritorious on par with the persons appointed in School Education Department. 7. According to the respondents, the School Education is a separate entity and candidates appointed in School Education are entitled to promotion avenue in their department. The members of the petitioner are working in Elementary Education Department as per the seniority list maintained by the Elementary Education Department. One other condition contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.209, School Education, dated 8.5.1997 is to obtain No Objection Certificate from the parent department for getting unit transfer to other department and the incumbents should have completed probation in the present post. According to the respondents, unit transfer is not meant for candidates appointed and regularised on 1.6.2006 only and it is applicable to candidates appointed prior to 1.6.2006 also. 8. As per the present policy decision of the Government, appointments are made through Employment Exchange and therefore, the members of the petitioner Association cannot claim equivalent of the said appointments. It is not true that in the School Education Department, there is no avenue of promotion. The members of the petitioner Association were appointed as B.T. Teachers in Elementary Education Department could not be considered for counselling because, they are not declared probation. It is also stated that the members of the petitioner Association have no vested right to seek transfer from Elementary Education service to School Education service and both are different and distinct. The claim of the members of the petitioner Association for fresh counselling is not sustainable since the mere completion of probation is not sufficient for unit transfer. It is also stated that the members of the petitioner Association have no vested right to seek transfer from Elementary Education service to School Education service and both are different and distinct. The claim of the members of the petitioner Association for fresh counselling is not sustainable since the mere completion of probation is not sufficient for unit transfer. It is further stated that the writ petition filed by the Association is not maintainable. The date of counselling viz., 29.5.2008 was fixed only based on policy decision of the Government for general transfer on the eve of completion of summer vacation. The mere completion of 2 years is not sufficient and necessary orders for the completion of probation must be passed by the authority. The writ petition is filed six months after the date of counselling and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Tamil Nadu B.T., P.G. Teachers and B.Ed. Graduate Association which is a registered Association consisting of 80,000 members who are unemployed B.T., B.Ed. and P.G. Degree holders has filed a petition in M.P.No.3 of 2008 to implead itself. It is its case that in 2007-08, 7200 members were appointed in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools through Employment Exchange on seniority basis. This year the Government has selected 7000 B.T. And B.Ed. Assistants through Employment Exchange for appointment in the High School and Higher Secondary Schools on seniority basis. While so, even without impleading the said Association, the writ petition has been filed. According to the impleading respondent, on 22.9.2008, 23.9.2008 and 24.9.2008 certificate verification was completed and the Government was about to issue appointment orders, the petitioner Association has filed the present writ petition before this Court and this Court has directed the respondents to maintain status quo. The application for impleading was filed and allowed on 16.12.2008 since the learned counsel for the writ petitioner had no objection for impleadment and subsequently, the impleading party has also filed counter affidavit which is in terms of the counter affidavit filed by the Government. 10. Mr. The application for impleading was filed and allowed on 16.12.2008 since the learned counsel for the writ petitioner had no objection for impleadment and subsequently, the impleading party has also filed counter affidavit which is in terms of the counter affidavit filed by the Government. 10. Mr. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that inasmuch as the members of the petitioner Association were appointed in 2006 itself and their probation was to complete by 2008 which is also known to the respondents, it is only with mala fide intention, the counselling was fixed one day prior to the date of probation being completed and it is only to prevent the members of the petitioner Association from getting unit transfer from Elementary Education Department to School Education Department. According to him, no list has been maintained. His further case is that when the members of the petitioner Association were appointed in 2006 itself, fresh appointees who are going to be appointed by the Government through Employment Exchange cannot try to supersede the members of the petitioner Association, who are seniors. 11. On the other hand, it is the case of the learned Special Government Pleader that inasmuch as the members of the petitioner Association have not completed their probation period, they have no right even to think about counselling for transfer from one unit to another unit and once they are moved from Elementary Education Department to School Education Department, they have to be treated as junior most persons in the new unit. He would also submit that it is not as if the right of members of the petitioner Association is lost and immediately after their probation is declared, they will be entitled to be considered for unit transfer in which event the inter se seniority will also come into play. 12. It is the contention of Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable for the sole reason that the writ petitioner has chosen to avoid impleading the 5th respondent Association, the members of which are affected by the writ petition. It is also submitted that the members of the petitioner Association have no qualification to be considered for the purpose of attending the counselling and therefore, the question of conducting fresh counselling does not arise. 13. Heard Mr. It is also submitted that the members of the petitioner Association have no qualification to be considered for the purpose of attending the counselling and therefore, the question of conducting fresh counselling does not arise. 13. Heard Mr. S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 14. On the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of entire records, it is clear that the concept of unit transfer among the teachers was introduced by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.209, School Education Department dated 8.5.1997. Under the said Government Order, the Government has imposed certain conditions including that on transfer from one unit to another unit the transferee will become the junior most in the transferred place. The relevant portion of the said G.O. reads as follows: TAMIL 15. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.72, School Education Department, dated 14.6.2002, the Government has directed B.Ed. qualified teachers to take classes for 6th 7th and 8th standards since it was found that Secondary Grade Teachers were unable to handle such classes. As per the said Government Order, it is made clear that such appointments can be made only after completion of probation, which shall be a period of two years out of the total period of three years. Applying the said yardstick, there is no difficulty to conclude that when persons like the members of petitioner Association were appointed in Elementary Education Department, which is a separate department from the School Education Department, as it is seen in the counter affidavit, unless and until the members of petitioner Association complete their probation in their posts in Elementary Education Department, there is absolutely no possibility for them to claim the right to participate in the counselling for unit transfer. In the absence of completion of the period of probation which has to be done by an express order and not merely by the passage of time of two years, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by 31.5.2008, the members of petitioner Association would have automatically been declared probationers. 16. In fact, the rule is that probation must be declared on completion of two years out of a total period of three years. 16. In fact, the rule is that probation must be declared on completion of two years out of a total period of three years. When admittedly it is the case of the petitioner that either on 29.5.2008 or on 31.5.2008, the members of the petitioner Association have not been declared probation, there is no question of the members of the petitioner Association being permitted to participate in the counselling for the purpose of unit transfer from Elementary Education Department to School Education Department. 17. In any event, as submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is not as if the avenue of transfer from one unit to another unit in respect of the members of petitioner Association is closed. In fact, subject to the rules as elicited above, the members of the petitioner after completion of probation are entitled to be considered for unit transfer in which event, it is always open to the members of the petitioner Association to make necessary representation to explain as to how their seniority should be refixed and to redress their grievance if any in respect of inter se seniority. 18. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to consider about the public interest deserves to be considered. Exactly that point was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. v. SIYA RAM [ (2004) 7 SCC 405 ] wherein the Supreme Court has held that such consideration of public interest essentially requires a factual adjudication and therefore Article 226 cannot be a remedy. The observation in the judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard is as follows: "The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/ management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan [ (2001) 8 SCC 574 ]." In view of the above said position, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 19. There is one another point raised relating to locus standi of the petitioner Association. Even though it is true that the petitioner Association has made out a common cause that all its members are similarly placed, in respect of its members, their probation has to be declared individually and thereafter the right of each member for transfer would come into existence. It is not as if the probation of the members of the petitioner Association would be declared en masse. Therefore, there is definitely substance in the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the probation has to be declared individually in respect of members of the petitioner Association and hence, common cause of action does not arise. In any event, as I have stated earlier that the petitioner Association has espoused a common cause of similarly situated persons, I am of the view that the locus standi issue need not be determined in this case. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed, however with liberty to the members of petitioner Association to raise their legitimate grievance after the selection process is made in respect of their inter se seniority. No costs. Consequently, the interim order granted on 19.11.2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 stands vacated and the same is dismissed and M.P.No.2 of 2008 is allowed.