JUDGMENT : DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of all the writ petitions involving identical questions of law and facts. 2. The facts, in a nut-shell, are that the Government of India through National Health Mission launched a programme namely “Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakarm” in short 'RBSK’ with the aim to screen all children from birth upto the age of 18 years enrolled in Anganwari Centres and schools in the entire State in respect of developmental delays, birth defects, deficiencies and diseases. Under the programme, every child registered in Anganwari Centre has to be screened after every six month, whereas, every school going child once in a year by the Mobile Health Teams, in short 'MHT’. The programme has been launched by the Government of India for being implemented through respective State Governments for improving child health care across the State. 3. In order to carry out the aim and object of the programme, dedicated Mobile Health Teams (MHT) have been placed in every block of the State as per guidelines issued by the Government of India in the year 2016. Each Mobile Health Team is consisting of two BAMS doctors (one male + one female), one Pharmacist and one Female Health Worker. The provisions qua the number of children to be screened by each team per day have also been made in the guidelines framed by the Government of India. 4. In order to constitute the Mobile Health Teams in the State of Himachal Pradesh, advertisement No. 4/15 was published and thereby applications invited for various courses under the National Health Mission by respondent No.2, the Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners and all the Medical Officers male/female, qualified as per the advertisement, have made the applications pursuant to the advertisement, Annexure P-1. They were ultimately selected and given appointment. Before they could join at the place of their posting, they were made to execute an agreement, a specimen whereof is Annexure P-1 to this writ petition (CWP No. 3559 of 2019). It is after execution of the agreement by them with the respondent-Department, they started screening the children registered in Anganwari Centres/Schools situated under their respective blocks. They have now been transferred from their respective blocks to other development blocks in the State. It is after execution of the agreement by them with the respondent-Department, they started screening the children registered in Anganwari Centres/Schools situated under their respective blocks. They have now been transferred from their respective blocks to other development blocks in the State. The complaint is that as per the guidelines and also the agreement they executed, they have to work in that block where appointed and that they cannot be transferred to any other place. 5. On the very first day after hearing learned counsel representing the petitioners and going through the contents of the writ petitions as well as issuing notice to the respondent-State, learned Senior Additional Advocate General was granted time to have instructions in the matter. At the same time, the operation of order of transfer under challenge in these writ petitions was also ordered to be stayed. 6. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has now placed on record the written instructions. The aim and object of the programme has been highlighted therein. The procedure prescribed under the guidelines framed by the Government of India to be followed by the Mobile Health Teams qua their performance has also been highlighted in the written instructions. As regards the transfer of the petitioners, it has been pointed out that in order to rationalize the screening work in the entire State i.e. in the area where the number of Anganwari Centres/Schools and children is on higher side, provision of more Mobile Health Teams in such areas as compared to those where the work of screening is either over or on lesser side. The matter, as per instructions, has been considered by the State Government at an appropriate stage and a conscious decision qua rationalization of the work by each team has been taken. It has also been pointed out that with regard to area where either the work is on lesser side or finished by the teams, the respondent-State is left with only option either to shift the man power engaged under the programme in those areas to other where the work is on higher side or to disengage their services. 7. It is in this backdrop, we have heard S/Sh. Arush Matlotia and Vishwa Bhushan, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent-State and also gone through the entire record. 8. 7. It is in this backdrop, we have heard S/Sh. Arush Matlotia and Vishwa Bhushan, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent-State and also gone through the entire record. 8. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent-State that in those areas where the work is already finished or is on lesser side, however, the number of Mobile Health Teams is proportionately on higher side to deploy such teams in those areas where the work is still in progress or on higher side. The rationalization required to be made on this score cannot be termed as illegal and arbitrary, because to allow the teams to continue in those areas where sufficient work is not available would amount to wastage of man power and also the funds provided for the purpose. Otherwise also, under the programme each Mobile Health Team has been given the target of screening the children per day. In case, in a particular area, sufficient work is not available, contemplating such target to each team under the programme will loose its significance. Therefore, the rationalization fulfilling the test of fairness, reasonableness of course on taking into consideration the disabilities/difficulties of any member of the teams so constituted would always be in the success of the programme which has been launched to fulfill a very noble cause i.e., to screen the children in rural areas having no medical facilities and even awareness also amongst the parents. We hope and trust that the respondents while rationalizing the man power under the programme shall take into consideration the test of fairness and reasonableness and also the personal disabilities/difficulties of any member of the team, keeping in view that the petitioners and other staff has been selected/deployed on a particular project under the programme to fulfill its aim and object and also that the man power including the petitioners having been engaged to fulfill this task are on contract basis and financially also not so sound. Therefore, the efforts to post them as far as possible at the nearest places should be made while rationalizing the work and constituting teams for those areas where the work is still on higher side. No other and further direction in the given facts and circumstances of this case can be issued. Therefore, the efforts to post them as far as possible at the nearest places should be made while rationalizing the work and constituting teams for those areas where the work is still on higher side. No other and further direction in the given facts and circumstances of this case can be issued. As a matter of fact, it would rather be for the petitioners themselves to bring to the notice of the competent authority by way of making a comprehensive representation their grievances. We hope and trust that in case a representation is made, the said authority shall consider the same sympathetically and also following the test of fairness and reasonableness as discussed by us in this judgment in para supra. 9. Therefore, we dispose of all the writ petitions by leaving it open to the individual petitioner to make comprehensive representation to respondent No.2 within a week from today, highlighting their grievances therein. Respondent No.2 shall consider and take a conscious decision thereon within a week thereafter. The interim order passed in these writ petitions shall continue till the decision is taken by respondent No.2 in this matter. In case the petitioners would still feel aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision to be so taken on the ground that the same does not fulfill the test of fairness and reasonableness and rather arbitrary in nature, they shall be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.