JUDGMENT : The bunch of present Writ Petitions has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 19.09.2016 and 01.10.2016, annexed as Annexure Nos. 8, 9 & 10 to the Writ Petition as well as the transfer list dated 22.05.2018, which relates to the petitioners, contemplating to transfer them under the Compulsory Transfer Policy as framed under the Act. 2. The petitioners have filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 19.09.2016 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 01.10.2016 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure Nos.8, 9 and 10 respectively to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned transfer list issued by respondent no.4 on 24.05.2018 (Annexure No.02 of this writ petition) relates to the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to correct the service profile of the petitioner in accordance with the rules framed 2013 and 2014. (iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction of the nature, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The precise question, which has been sought to be agitated by the petitioners, is that under the transfer rules, which was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as back as in 2013 regulating transfer conditions of the petitioners, it contemplated in it a process of categorizing the institutions and, under those categorization the Institutions in which the petitioners have rendered their services were determined as to be Durgam and, accordingly, their services which was determined as to have been rendered in Durgam Institution, the benefit of services rendered therein ought to have been carried forwarded while determining their categorization under the Act of 2017. The petitioners submit that the services rendered in Durgam cannot be rendered futile and it cannot be excluded from its determination under the Rules of 2017. 4. Briefly put the case of the petitioners are that by virtue of the notification dated 21.05.2013 which was issued by the State Government, it initially governed the provisions pertaining to the appointment of promotion and transferred of the teachers named as “Uttarakhand Shikshak (Vidyalayee Shikshak) Pratham Niyukti, Padonnati Evam Sthanantaran Paar Padsthapam Niyamawali-2013”. 5. 4. Briefly put the case of the petitioners are that by virtue of the notification dated 21.05.2013 which was issued by the State Government, it initially governed the provisions pertaining to the appointment of promotion and transferred of the teachers named as “Uttarakhand Shikshak (Vidyalayee Shikshak) Pratham Niyukti, Padonnati Evam Sthanantaran Paar Padsthapam Niyamawali-2013”. 5. The argument of the petitioner runs that the Niyamawali-2013 (hereinafter to be called as Rules of 2013), framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India, it were self contained rules which initially governed the criterions of categorization of various institutions in its rule 4(2)(Ka) dealt with Government Primary and Higher Primary Schools; Rule 4(2) (Kha) dealt with Government Madhyamik School which included in its High School and Intermediate Schools. The case of the petitioners is that based on the fact that under Rule 2013 in its Rule 5 provided Constitution of District Level Committee to consider classification Primary and Higher School and similarly Rule 5(2) provided Constitution of Divisional Level Committee for classification of High School and Intermediate Schools. Thereafter, it contained various provisions regards identification of institution in Rule 4, Categorization in Rule 5 by the Committee constituted therein, and ultimately the Transfer of Teachers already employed on the date of enforcement of rules as contained under Rule 10; which had categorized the transfers as to be (1) compulsory transfer; (2) Transfer on Request; (3) Mutual Transfer, and (4) Administrative transfers. 6. Ultimately, as per rules of 2013 framed under Article 306 of Constitution decision for various level of teachers are required to be taken by various Committees constituted for different level of Committees provided under Rule 25. 7. The Rules of 2013, underwent a legislative amendment by a notification issued on 23.12.2014, whereby, by virtue of which various vital amendments were carried out in the rules, in particular in Rule 4. Regards categorization of Institutions, Rule 5 regards to Constitution of Committee for categorization and so far the case of the petitioners is that as per the Rules of 2013 and as amended on 23.12.2014, the petitioners have discharged the following period of services in Durgam Area, as determined by the Committee under Rule 5 of Rules of 2013, which reads as under:- Sl.No. W.P. Presently Posted Services Rendered SUGAM Services Rendered DURGAM 1. 1676/18 Assistant Teacher (Maths) L.T. Govt. 1676/18 Assistant Teacher (Maths) L.T. Govt. Higher Sec. School, Patrampur Block Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar Rules 2013/14 00 years 00 month 00 days Act of 2017, 2 years 1 month 11 days Rules 2013/14 19 years, 08 months, 21 days Act of 2017, 00 years, 04 months, 01 day 2. 1678/18 Lecturer (Economics) G.I.C. Matiyali Block Dugadda, Distt. Pauri Rules 2013/14 5 years, 3 months, 13 days Act of 2017, 25 years, 11 months, 06 days Rules 2013/14 27 years, 10 months, 06 days Act of 2017, 44 years, 05 months, 04 days 3. 1679/18 Lecturer (Biology) G.I.C. Matiyali Block Dugadda, Distt. Pauri Rules 2013/14 16 years, 08 months, 08 days Act of 2017, 28 years, 00 months, 13 days Rules 2013/14 09 years, 09 months, 00 days Act of 2017, 01 year, 04 months, 28 days 4. 1683/18 Assistant Teacher (Hindi) L.T. Grade, Govt. Higher Sec. School, Biria Majhola, Block Khatima, Distt. U.S. Nagar Rules 2013/14 08 years, 11 months, 03 days Act of 2017, 20 years, 11 months, 16 days Rules 2013/14 10 years, 07 months, 10 days Act of 2017, 00 years, 07 months, 09 days 5. 1687/18 Assistant Teacher (Maths) G.I.C.College Kanwaghati, Block Dugadda, Distt. Pauri Rules 2013/14 14 years, 00 months, 12 days Act of 2017, 19 years, 10 months, 17 days Rules 2013/14 11 years, 08 months, 03 days Act of 2017, 07 years, 03 months, 09 days 6. 1688/18 Lecturer (Maths) G.I.C. Ram Nagar, Block Ram Nagar, Distt. Nainital Rules 2013/14 01 year, 05 months, 16 days Act of 2017, 21 years, 00 months, 01 day Rules 2013/14 19 years, 00 months, 19 days Act of 2017, 01 year, 07 months, 06 days 7. 1690/18 Lecturer (Pol. Sci.) G.I.C. Kanwaghali, Block Dugadda, Distt. Pauri Rules 2013/14 04 years, 08 months, 13 days Act of 2017, 29 years, 05 months, 10 days Rules 2013/14 23 years, 07 months, 21 days Act of 2017, 00 years, 00 months, 00 day 8. 1691/18 Lecturer (Maths) L.T. Grade G.I.C. Ram Nagar, Distt. Nainital Rules 2013/14 10 years, 11 months, 02 days Act of 2017, 21 years, 06 months, 01 day Rules 2013/14 10 years, 08 months, 29 days Act of 2017, 01 year, 07 months, 18 days 9. 1693/18 Lecturer (Pol. Sci.) G.I.C. Majari Mali, Block Diwala, Distt. 1691/18 Lecturer (Maths) L.T. Grade G.I.C. Ram Nagar, Distt. Nainital Rules 2013/14 10 years, 11 months, 02 days Act of 2017, 21 years, 06 months, 01 day Rules 2013/14 10 years, 08 months, 29 days Act of 2017, 01 year, 07 months, 18 days 9. 1693/18 Lecturer (Pol. Sci.) G.I.C. Majari Mali, Block Diwala, Distt. Dehradun Rules 2013/14 01 year, 06 months, 07 days Act of 2017, 25 years, 02 months, 28 days Rules 2013/14 28 years, 10 months, 10 days Act of 2017, 06 years, 05 months, 04 days 10. 1695/18 Assistant Teacher (Maths) L.T. Grade, G.I.C. Ranighat, Block Betal Ghat, Distt. Nainital Rules 2013/14 03 years, 06 months, 08 days Act of 2017, 23 years, 10 months, 22 days Rules 2013/14 23 years, 11 months, 14 days Act of 2017, 01 year, 07 months, 02 days 11. 1696/18 Assistant Teacher (Maths) L.T. Grade, G.I.C. Kanwaghati, Block Dugadda, Distt. Pauri Rules 2013/14 12 years, 02 months, 19 days Act of 2017, 27 years, 11 months, 08 days Rules 2013/14 15 years, 08 months, 24 days Act of 2017, 03 years, 04 months, 19 days 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid notification there was an amendment brought about on 23.12.2014, introducing the new parameters/norms with regards to the service condition of the teachers whose services were initially governed by the Rules of 2013 as notified on 21.05.2013. According to the petitioners, the computations of services as rendered in Durgam and determined as per the criteria provided therein are being sought to be done away, thereby depriving the benefit of determinations made earlier. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that there were two proposals which were initially brought into effect by respondent no.1, regulating the proposals for the amendment in the classification of the school as per 2008 Transfer Policy of Teachers. Ultimately, the case of the petitioners is also that respondent no.3 has issued an order calling proposal for appointment of Committee for the classification of school as per 2008 Transfer Policy. Though this classification was done of schools as per 2008 Transfer Policy, now because of subsequent developments same have became irrelevant for the matter involved in question. 10. Ultimately, the case of the petitioners is also that respondent no.3 has issued an order calling proposal for appointment of Committee for the classification of school as per 2008 Transfer Policy. Though this classification was done of schools as per 2008 Transfer Policy, now because of subsequent developments same have became irrelevant for the matter involved in question. 10. The grievance of the petitioners is that without the receipt of details of the proposals for amendment as done earlier and the classification of the institution effected on account of the implementation of the Transfer Policy in the year 2008, although it stood superseded in 2013 and 2014. The petitioners’ case and grievance is that even as per the Transfer Rules 2013 framed under Article 309, the respondents have already undertaken the exercise of categorization of instutitons into Durgam; Sugam and Ati Durgam, as per criterions provided under Rule 4, by virtue of which all the schools were categorized. Accordingly, the points as determined to be allocated in the manner as given in Appendix-A framed under Rule 7, 9(1); 10; 11 and 12, it was undergone and on completion of said exercise the period of service rendered by the petitioners was already determined, the case of the petitioners are that the respondents prior to preparing of the impugned transfer list have not been considered and taken note of the categorization and marks allotted for Durgam; Sugam etc. before framing the list by respondent under the Act of 2017. The contention of the petitioners is that the settlement or benefit already done under the prevalent rules at the relevant time cannot be nullified by subsequent legislative action which in the instant case is by enforcement of the Transfer Act, 2017. 11. The respondents have resorted to the impugned action by preparing the transfer list dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) by virtue of which the services and as per Transfer Act, 2017, the profiles contained therein were determined. 11. The respondents have resorted to the impugned action by preparing the transfer list dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) by virtue of which the services and as per Transfer Act, 2017, the profiles contained therein were determined. The petitioners’ submission is that the respondents prior to preparing the impugned transfer list dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) were bound to consider the categorization, assignment of gunank which was done by them as per statutory Rules of 2013 and the said exercise since has determined the status of petitioner for performance of an administrative act, it ought to have been considered for an identical action being taken with the enforcement of the new law, by way of Transfer Act, 2017. The submission is that by enforcing of Transfer Act, 2017, adopting and classifying the institutions in Durgam; Ati Durgam and Sugam and consequently considering transfer based on services rendered accordingly, cannot be nullified under the new parameters, thus enforced. For the redressal of the grievance, the petitioner, on 26.05.2018 (and such other dates of representation in relation to various petitions), had submitted a representation before the Director, School Education, wherein, in the representation thus submitted by him, he had sought the following reliefs:- ^^1- 2008 ds dksVhdj.k gsrq xq.kkadksa dh x.ku fu;ekoyh la0& 201¼1½ XXIV ¼01½2013 fnukad 21 ebZ 2013 mRRjk[k.M f’k{kd ¼fo|ky;h f’k{kk½ izFke fu;qfDr izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dh tkuh gSA mijksDr fu;ekuqlkj fd;s x;s dksVhdj.k 20 ebZ 2013 rd izHkkoh le>s tk;saxs mlds ckn dksVhdj.k dh x.kuk ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA 2- egksn; iqu% fuosnu gS fd eSaus vizSy 1991 ls 14-5-2008 rd jk0b0dk0 dYthjoky ikSM+h x<+okyh esa izoDrk jlk;u ds in ij dk;Z fd;kA egksn; ;g LFkku 20 ebZ 2013 rd nqxZe bZ& iksVZy dh izfr layXu gSA** 12. As far as this argument of the petitioners is concerned, according to the argument of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, the learned counsel for State, he justified the act for the reason being, if Section 2 of the Transfer Act of 2017 is taken into consideration, Section 2 of the Act gives the Act an overriding effect to any other provisions applicable to the service conditions of an employee. What is surprising is that the Act does not protect any action, which has taken under the Rules of 2013. What is surprising is that the Act does not protect any action, which has taken under the Rules of 2013. Apart from it, since under Section 3 (Jha) of the Act the determination of the Institution and its categorization has been independently contemplated, it goes without saying that such a categorization has to be done independently under the provisions as applicable under the Act. The issue which has been agitated by the petitioners though it apparently seems to be debatable but, in the absence of there being a protection savings clause for action taken under the Rules of 2013 prevailing under Article 309 since the Act itself has been given an overriding effect, they cannot claim the benefit prima facie at this stage in the Writ jurisdiction. 13. Invariably, all the representations submitted by the writ petitioners of each writ petition though the relief in it would be slightly different, but widely it aimed that the classification of institutions, determinations of services of petitioners in the Sugam, Durgam and Ati Durgam done under the exercise of statutory rules of 2013/14 framed under Article 309 may be protected and be made applicable and considered while categorizing the petitioners’ institution and allocation of marks under the Act of 2017, and their placement be based on the consideration of old categorization too. 14. In the representation for example thus submitted by one the petitioners he has prayed for that the services rendered by him from April, 1991 to 14.05.2008 in the Government Inter College, Kalzikhal, Pauri Garhwal, which happens to be a Category-D Institution should be taken into consideration for the purposes of transferring him to a remote area under the Transfer Act of 2017. 15. This Court feels that calling for a counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending would not serve the purpose of justice and considers that it would be in the interest of justice that because the petitioners are facing a probable transfer based on the Transfer List dated 24.05.2018 impugned in the writ petition by virtue of which he has been included in list of proposed transfers from wherein his name appeared in the list. The petitioner, at this stage, has confined his relief that in view of the provision contained under Section 22 (4) of the Transfer Act contemplates, namely, statutory representation, the representation which has been submitted by him on 26.05.2018 may be directed to be disposed of by the Director, School Education, which is pending before him. 16. In this case since the issue is pertaining to consideration of the period of services rendered earlier, and since the said action is not being safeguarded, it would be an issue which goes to the very root of the controversy as to whether at all the services rendered by the petitioners in the Durgam area under the Rules of 2013 could be excluded or considered under 2017 Act or not. For the said purpose since there is a statutory remedy available to them under Section 22(4), it will always be open to invoke the said remedy before the competent Authority, but, here the situation which has ultimately arrived at could also be protected after taking into consideration sub section 2 of Section 27 of the Act, which provides with the removal of the difficulty clause. 17. Looking to the relief sought at this stage since being innocuous in nature and couple with the fact that the tenure of service rendered by an employee in the remote area always place an important role for considering the transfer of an employee from Sugam to Durgam Area or vice versa under the Transfer Act, 2017, it would be in all fitness of things that the respondent no.3, be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners on merits within four weeks from today and if necessary after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At this juncture, it is made clear that same would not be rejected on the ground of limitation for its filing as provided under Section 22(4) of the Transfer Act, 2017. 18. Hence, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to the Authority as constituted under sub section 2 of Section 27 along with the superior Authority as provided under sub section 2 of Section 22 to consider the representation of the petitioners, which they may file afresh within a period of ten days from today. 18. Hence, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to the Authority as constituted under sub section 2 of Section 27 along with the superior Authority as provided under sub section 2 of Section 22 to consider the representation of the petitioners, which they may file afresh within a period of ten days from today. The said representation would be considered by the Authority superior to the Authority passing the impugned order by the reasoned order within a period of one month from today. 19. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 20. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit in this case. The Director, School Education has to take his independent decision. However, there would be no order as to costs.