ORDER : 1. Draft amendment tendered by Mr. Gaurav Chudasama is allowed. Draft amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking following prayers :- “16.A. This petition be admitted and allowed. B. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to allow the present petitioners to go back into their original Taluka i.e. Khedbrahma by way of Intra District Transfer which is held as per the provisions of the transfer rules Dt. 01.04.2022. C. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to modify the new transfer rules Dt. 01.04.2022 and after doing the same the present petitioners may be given benefit of Taluka Transfer i.e. Intra District Transfer.” 3. The petitioners are praying to go back to the original Taluka: Khedbrahma by way of intra district transfer, which is held as per the provisions of the Transfer Rules Dated 01.04.2022. The petitioners want to go from one Taluka to another Taluka that is from Taluka Poshina where they are presently working to Taluka: Khedbramha where their initial appointment was made for ten years in view of the Policy dated 01.04.2022, which does not provide anywhere that the teachers can claim their transfer from one Taluka to another Taluka, to such teachers as the petitioners. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Chudasama has submitted that initially the petitioners were appointed in District-Sabarkantha at Taluka: Khedbrahma by order dated 1.11.2014 for a period of ten years, and thereafter, in the year 2018, Taluka: Khedbrahma was bifurcated and another Taluka: Poshina was formed by the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioners were regularized, when they were working at Poshina Taluka, and accordingly, an order dated 31.08.2019 was passed by the District Education Committee. Learned advocate Mr. Chudasama has submitted that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer because they are residing in Khedbrahma Taluka. Learned advocate Mr. Chudasama has submitted that in fact the Policy dated 01.04.2022, which governs the transfer of the teachers/vidyasahayaks, permits inter district transfer, however, the transfer within taluka is not permissible, and hence, the present petitioners, who have been absorbed in regular pay scale after a period of five years on the post of Assistant Teachers on 15.02.2020, may be transferred to the original Taluka i.e. Khedbrahma from Poshina Taluka. It is further submitted that the respondents authority may, accordingly, be directed to accept the form physically for intra district transfer camp to go back to their original Taluka Khedbramha from Poshina Taluka. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Chudasama has submitted that the District Education Committee has issued the guidelines for filling up the application form online on 29.10.2022 and the guideline No.16, suggests of filling up the form or application in those cases of vidyasahayaks/teachers, who have been appointed for a period of ten years and have been serving in the same Taluka. Thus, it is submitted that the present writ-petition may be allowed and the clause No.4 of Chapter-G of the Resolution dated 01.04.2022 may be modified. 6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval has submitted that the petitioners cannot claim their right of being transferred from one Taluka to another Taluka only because they are facing some difficulty. It is submitted by him that the Policy does not anywhere provide that the teachers can claim transfer from one Taluka to another Taluka after bifurcation of Taluka. It is submitted by learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval that the petitioners are governed by the conditions, as envisaged in the appointment orders dated 30.06.2014 and 01.11.2014, wherein it is provided that the petitioner cannot claim for Taluka or inter district transfer after their appointment for a period of ten years. Learned AGP has placed reliance on the judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.3210 of 2022 and allied matters in support of his submission and has submitted that the teachers would be governed by the Resolution dated 30.08.2017, which has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench. 7. Thus, it is submitted that the present writ-petition may not be entertained. 8. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 9. The facts of the case indicate that the petitioners were initially appointed at Sabarkantha District, Taluka: Khedbrahma. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the Taluka was bifurcated and a new Taluka: Poshina was formed. The petitioners continued in the newly formed Taluka: Poshina and also were confirmed in the said Taluka Poshina in the year 2019. 10. By this writ-petition, the petitioners are claiming to go back to their original Taluka on the ground that there is some personal difficulty, which would be affecting them in rendering their service. 11. The petitioners continued in the newly formed Taluka: Poshina and also were confirmed in the said Taluka Poshina in the year 2019. 10. By this writ-petition, the petitioners are claiming to go back to their original Taluka on the ground that there is some personal difficulty, which would be affecting them in rendering their service. 11. The petitioners have also sought modification of the transfer Policy dated 01.04.2022. It is a case of the petitioners that though the Policy, more particularly, paragraph No.4 of Chapter-G of the said Policy 01.10.2022 provides for inter district transfer, the same does not provide for Taluka transfers within a district and the same is required to be modified. This Court is of the considered opinion that such a request or prayer made by the petitioners cannot be entertained because the State Government and the State authorities in its wisdom have framed such policies looking to the administrative convenience. The Policy provides for inter district transfer and not transfer within the Taluka within the district in those cases of vidyasahayaks, who have been appointed for a period of ten years. In the present case, the petitioners are claiming to be transferred to their original Taluka: Khedbrahma as Taluka: Poshina has been newly formed Taluka after the bifurcation of Taluka: Khedbrahma. This Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot further introduced condition in the Resolution dated 01.04.2022, more particularly, condition No.4 of Chapter-G for providing a transfer from Taluka to Taluka within the district for those vidyasahayaks, who have been appointed for a period of ten years. It is also not disputed that the case of the petitioners are governed by the Resolution dated 30.08.2017 and also the Resolution dated 21.01.2014 which are in existence and are not modified or rescinded. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the provisions of Resolution dated 30.08.2017 in the judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.3210 of 2022 and allied matters has held as under:- “15. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, what needs to be seen is the stand of the State in context of the resolutions issued by the State from time to time. Prior to the resolution dated 30.08.2017, the State had framed a policy decision by a resolution of 21.01.2014 which is on record of Special Civil Application No.3210 of 2022. Prior to the resolution dated 30.08.2017, the State had framed a policy decision by a resolution of 21.01.2014 which is on record of Special Civil Application No.3210 of 2022. Reading of the resolution indicates that the State found that in several Talukas in the primary sections of Classes 1 to 5, there was a deficit of teachers. This was adversely affecting the students’ education. In order to maintain and not to deprive the students of the education in those districts and the 2000 vacancies that were found to have been existing in those districts for the academic year 2013-14, a decision was taken to recruit 2000 Vidhya Sahayaks subject to certain conditions. Conditions no.3 and 4 of the resolution stipulated that as and when an incumbent is appointed in this Taluka, he would continue to serve the Taluka for a period of 10 years. That on the appointment, the concerned incumbent would not ask for a transfer outside the Taluka. Similar resolution was passed on 23.09.2014 in context of 1300 vacancies for the academic year 2014-15 reiterating similar conditions. In the year 2017, on 30.08.2017 for the districts of Chhota Udaipur, Kutch and Devbhumi Dwarka, where the petitioners come from, such a resolution was passed for recruitment in the academic year 2017-18 for 1300 vacancies that were found to be in the concerned Talukas. The conditions of 10 years embargo on continuing in the districts, Taluka school and not requesting for transfer was reiterated. 16. Appointment orders are on record of the petitioners where with their open eyes the petitioners have accepted these appointments. A sample appointment order dated 13.10.2017 filed in the petition would indicate that the petitioners when appointed accepted by virtue of the condition nos.2 and 3 in the orders that they will continue to serve the Taluka for the period of 10 years. That they will not ask for moving out for Taluka on transfer. In accordance with the resolution dated 22.03.2017, they gave a bond of Rs.3 lakhs as stipulated in condition no.4 of their appointment orders. 17. Having accepted the appointments to work in the Talukas where teachers were needed, the petitioners bound themselves to be continued in the Taluka schools at the relevant point of time for a period of 10 years from the date of their appointments. 18. 17. Having accepted the appointments to work in the Talukas where teachers were needed, the petitioners bound themselves to be continued in the Taluka schools at the relevant point of time for a period of 10 years from the date of their appointments. 18. Reliance placed on the resolution dated 22.03.2017 and to submit that the petitioners be relieved of their obligation to serve for a period of 10 years, inasmuch as they would be willing to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs in case where teachers have completely less than three years of service and in cases of having completed more than four years of service, that condition not being applicable and they be relieved is a misconceived submission. From the resolutions of 2014 which are reiterated in the resolution of 30.08.2017 pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed is clearly made a condition of their appointment that they will continue to serve for a Taluka for a period of 10 years and not claim transfer. The argument of Mr. Chudasama that what they are claiming is a benefit of fresh recruitment and not transfer is also misconceived. The effect of a fresh recruitment and in the event of the petitioners being selected, would indicate that the petitioners if selected will move out of the districts in which they were appointed. This would frustrate the conditions of the resolution and the appointment orders which they with their open eyes accepted. The petitioners are bound by the conditions of the resolution dated 30.08.2017 and the conditions in the appointment order. They cannot now turn around and say that having completed more than 3 years, in such cases they be relieved of their obligation to serve the district or in case where they have completed less than three years, they are willing to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Such a stand would frustrate the very object for which the resolutions of 2014 and 2017 pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed were enacted. The policy pursuant to which the petitioners have been appointed was with an object to see that in the district where the teachers do not opt for transfer and who face shortage of teachers, teachers be appointed with a condition that they may continue to serve such a district for a period of 10 years. The policy pursuant to which the petitioners have been appointed was with an object to see that in the district where the teachers do not opt for transfer and who face shortage of teachers, teachers be appointed with a condition that they may continue to serve such a district for a period of 10 years. That policy is also not a subject matter of challenge in these petitions.” 12. This Court has no reason to deviate from the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench. All the petitioners are bound by these conditions, which are envisaged in their appointment orders and also Resolutions dated 30.08.2017 and 22.03.2017. 13. The petitioners, as a matter of right, cannot claim their transfer from one Taluka to another Taluka on the basis that on the bifurcation of Taluka. The petitioners have obtained their benefit of regularization and regular pay scale in the new Taluka and after obtaining the same cannot, as a matter of right, claim their transfer to the erstwhile Taluka: Khedbrahma wherein they were appointed. 14. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the transfer of the petitioners are governed by the policy decision by the State Government and the conditions envisaged in their appointment orders. Merely because, there was bifurcation of Taluka in which they were serving, cannot give rise to any right of being transferred to the original Taluka: Khedbrahma, as it would be in absolute to domain of the respondent-State Authorities to effect their transfer or posting as per the Policy. The condition No.16 of the guidelines issued by the State Authority on 29.10.2022 will not help the petitioners in any manner, since the some only prescribes for filing of application for transfer within the taluka in which they are appointed for ten years. Such condition will not apply in case of bifurcation of taluka. 15. Thus, the writ-petition fails and is hereby rejected summarily. Notice discharged.