Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These three petitioners who are serving as teachers in Maithili, Physics and Chemistry in Marwari+2 High School, Ranchi, have been transferred by impugned notification at Annexure4 dated 20th January, 2014 being office order dated 169 issued by the respondent no.2, Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. They are aggrieved by the same inter alia on the following grounds: (i) That the petitioners are +2 teachers; their service conditions are governed by Jharkhand +2 Schools Teaching and Non-teaching Employees Recruitment and Service Condition Rules, 2012, Annexure1 to the writ application. According to them, their transfer can only be made on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee as conceived under Rule 13 of the said Rule and in the manner indicated at Rule 14 and Rule 20 thereof which has not been done in the instant case. According to them, specific statements made by them at paragraph no. 14 to that effect stands undenied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. (ii) That the petitioners, who are teachers in Maithili, Physics and Chemistry, have been transferred to the respective schools which do not have vacant post of Maithili, Physics and Chemistry in each of those schools. Such a statement has also been made by them in paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition which again stands undenied in the counter affidavit. (iii) It is the contention of the petitioner that these transfers have been made in a punitive manner which is supported by the statements made in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit. It has been stated that it has been done on disciplinary grounds and in the interest of educational environment of school. It is submitted that such a transfer in lieu of punishment amounts to malice in law. In support thereof a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 , paras 16 & 21 have been relied. The petitioners have relied upon other judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uttam Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. In support thereof a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 , paras 16 & 21 have been relied. The petitioners have relied upon other judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uttam Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) J C R 306 (Jhr.) as also in the case of Chandramouli Prasad _vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.(S) No. 5394 of 2013 dated 4th October, 2013, in support of their contention that a transfer made without recommendation of the Establishment Committee, is not proper in the eye of law for failing to follow the procedure and the policy prescribed for such transfer under the respondent government. According to them, when there is a statutory rule governing their service condition, the respondents were obliged to follow the same. The petitioners have further relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of the Patna High Court rendered in the case of R.P. Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1980 BLJR 482, to submit that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind as the respondents do not seem to have considered that there are no vacant post of the relevant subjects in the school where these petitioners have been transferred. On these grounds, the impugned order has been assailed. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there was a internecine fight between the headmaster and the present petitioners on some trivial issue relating to marking of attendance and the headmaster instead of considering their representation not only reported to the superior authority but also instituted an F.I.R., Annexure-2 on 2nd January, 2014 itself in haste. According to the learned counsel, these petitioners have been granted bail by the trial Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from errors on various grounds. The petitioners if at all are responsible for any misconduct are ready to face any departmental proceeding. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted on his behalf that unsavory atmosphere have been created because of the ongoing fight between the petitioners and the headmaster of the school where these petitioners have been posted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted on his behalf that unsavory atmosphere have been created because of the ongoing fight between the petitioners and the headmaster of the school where these petitioners have been posted. Because of this the conduct of these petitioners was reported to the higher authority i.e. District Education Officer concerned. On receipt of report of District Education Officer regarding misbehavior with the headmaster of the said school, the impugned order has been passed in the interest of educational environment of the school and also on disciplinary ground. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 had, in fact, made his signature on attendance register 5 days before on 28th December, 2013 for the date 2nd January, 2014 which was also found by District Education Officer on inspection. According to the respondents the conduct of the petitioners warranted their immediate transfer from the present school, so that the teaching environment of the school may not be affected adversely. Therefore, they have justified the issuance of the impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records. The submission of the parties and the pleadings on record, definitely give an impression that there was a simmering dispute ongoing between the headmaster of the school and the present petitioners which also led to the institution of an F.I.R. by the concerned headmaster on 2nd January, 2014 under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code. It further appears that there were instances in which one of the petitioners had indulged in recording attendance on a post date 20114 i.e. on 28th December, 2013 itself. This internecine fight amongst the headmaster and the petitioner may have affected the teaching environment of the institution itself. However, at the same time, it is also apparent that the petitioners were taken into custody because of institution of an F.I.R. by the headmaster of the school. The respondents do not seem to have initiated any disciplinary action against the concerned persons. The impugned order has been passed apparently without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee as conceived under the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, Annexure1. The respondents do not seem to have initiated any disciplinary action against the concerned persons. The impugned order has been passed apparently without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee as conceived under the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, Annexure1. Rule 13 thereof provides for constitution of Establishment Committee and Rule 20 thereof provides that the teaching and non-teaching employees are to be transferred on the recommendation of the appropriate Establishment Committee whether State level or district level constituted for the said purpose. It has also not been disputed that the petitioners have been transferred to a place where there are no vacant post in the respective subjects which itself shows non application of mind on the part of the competent authority. 6. Apparently, the order of transfer has also been justified on disciplinary grounds. 7. In the aforesaid state of facts and circumstances, on the one hand, it appears that even though an order of transfer has been issued on disciplinary ground against the petitioners, but they have been posted at places where there are no vacant posts existing. This again does not serve the purpose for their transfer. At the same time, in absence of any disciplinary action against the concerned persons, it cannot be said that on being transferred to another school, such errant behavior on the part of the persons can be controlled. However, since the petitioners have been posted at a place where no vacant posts are existing, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the competent authority of the respondent, so that in the exigency of the circumstances, it at all the transfer was necessary they should be posted at place where such vacant posts are existing in the subjects in which they are engaged. It is further being observed that mere transfer in such circumstances may not serve the purpose. The silence of the authorities for not initiating any disciplinary action against the responsible persons for such alleged acts on account of internecine dispute between the headmaster and the present petitioners is also inexplicable. 8. It is further being observed that mere transfer in such circumstances may not serve the purpose. The silence of the authorities for not initiating any disciplinary action against the responsible persons for such alleged acts on account of internecine dispute between the headmaster and the present petitioners is also inexplicable. 8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, therefore, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, while interfering with the impugned order of transfer dated 20th January, 2014, Annexure4, the competent authority of the State is directed to take fresh decision in the matter, in relation to the posting of the petitioner and also in relation to the issue whether any disciplinary action is required to be taken against the persons concerned. However, such a decision is to be taken uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Petition allowed.