Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2146 (GUJ)

Bariya Babubhai Ambalal v. State Of Gujarat

2024-12-04

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Nirzar S. Desai, J.) 1. Draft amendment filed in each of the respective petitions and/or civil applications is granted. To be carried out forthwith. 2. Civil Application No.3 of 2024 in SCA No.25532 of 2022 as well as Civil Application No.3 of 2024 in SCA No.25077 of 2022 are filed by the applicants seeking impleadment as parties in the main respective petitions whereby the persons who are affected by the claim of the petitioners seeking a direction to hold the transfer camp in district bifurcation have applied for being impleaded as respondent. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt as well as learned Advocate Mr. Devnani appearing in the respective civil applications for joining party demonstrated that in view of the order of priority for holding camp for transfer in the case of Vidyasahayaks and as they are in the priority list, the transfer camps are required to be held prior in point of time for the persons seeking transfer on the basis of district bifurcation. If the claims of the original petitioners are considered positively, the applicants who have preferred civil applications for being impleaded as respondents and who are seeking Inter-District transfer would be directly affected and, therefore, all the civil applications that are filed for being impleaded as party are decided as there was no formal objection against the present applications, the same are allowed. The applicants in each of the applications are directed to be impleaded as respective respondents in each of the main petitions. Cause title of the respective main writ petitions be amended forthwith. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jay N. Shah appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.25743 of 2022, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.5. A communication in this regard is taken on record. Permission as prayed for is granted. Special Civil Application No.25743 of 2022 stands dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.5. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.14657 of 2023, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.10. A communication in this regard is taken on record. Permission as prayed for is granted. Special Civil Application No.14657 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.10. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.14657 of 2023, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.10. A communication in this regard is taken on record. Permission as prayed for is granted. Special Civil Application No.14657 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.10. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.25642 of 2022, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner Nos.1, 8, 23, 14 and 34. A communication in this regard is taken on record. Permission as prayed for is granted. Special Civil Application No.25642 of 2022 stands dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner Nos.1, 8, 23, 14 and 34. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.2214 of 2023, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.1. A communication in this regard is taken on record. Permission as prayed for is granted. Special Civil Application No.2214 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.1. 8. Since common issues involved in all these petitions are under consideration, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the same are taken up for final disposal today itself. Hence, RULE. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in each of the petitions waive service of rule. Learned counsels for the parties have further agreed that Special Civil Application No.25532 of 2022 may be treated as lead matter and hence, for determining the controversy in all these petitions, the facts are taken from the said petition and, therefore, though separate petitions are filed, facts and pleadings are considered from Special Civil Application No.25532 of 2022. 9. By way of this group of petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 1/3.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 - i.e. Director of Primary Education who cancelled the district bifurcation camp in district Panchmahals and Kheda to district Mahisagar and have further prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to organize the district bifurcation camp as per Clause Q of the Policy / Government Resolution dated 1.4.2022 issued by the Education Department of the State of Gujarat before organizing Inter / Intra District Transfer Camp and, more particularly, as per the letter dated 1.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 herein. 10. Though, there are number of petitions and time to time, the Government has come out with Policy for transfer of Vidyasahayaks, more particularly, policy in respect of transfer of Vidyasahayaks on account of district bifurcation, those policies were framed either by way of administrative instructions / Government Resolutions / Rules i.e. Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. Though these policies were framed from time to time and were superseded on account of framing of the fresh policy, more or less the provision of the policy related to the district bifurcation transfer have remained the same throughout from 2016 and, therefore, in nut-shell, in some of the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for their transfer on the basis of 2016 administrative policy, in some of the petitions the petitioners have prayed for holding of transfer camps pursuant to the policy dated 1.4.2022 and in some of the petitions like Special Civil Application No.16268 of 2024, when the policy of the year 2023 was in force, the prayers are made to hold the transfer camps for district bifurcation transfer on account of existing policy. However, the relevant clause governing the district bifurcation transfer has remained more or less the same, even if all the three policies are considered and there is no much difference in the said policies and hence, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 11. The facts as stated in Special Civil Application No.25532 of 2022 being the lead petition are as under :- 11.1 The petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers vide different orders for initial period of five years on fixed salary of Rs.2,500/- and after completion of the said period of five years, they are placed in regular service and as per that, they are now getting regular pay scale. It is the case of the petitioners that the Education Department issued Government Resolution and framed a Policy vide G.R. dated 23.5.2012 with respect to transfer rules for upper primary teachers / Vidyasahayaks / Primary Teachers. As per the said Policy, the benefit of district transfer can be availed by the teachers only once during his tenure of service. It is the case of the petitioners that the Education Department issued Government Resolution and framed a Policy vide G.R. dated 23.5.2012 with respect to transfer rules for upper primary teachers / Vidyasahayaks / Primary Teachers. As per the said Policy, the benefit of district transfer can be availed by the teachers only once during his tenure of service. 11.2 It is stated in paragraph 4.3 of the petition that the petitioners have availed the benefit of district transfer once and pursuant to that benefit only, they were posted in the Panchmahal district and at present, they were working in Panchmahal district. In other petitions, the petitioners are working in Kheda district. But what is meant in all petitions is that from Panchmahal / Kheda district, they want themselves to be transferred to newly created Mahisagar district and that is how all the petitioners have common facts. 11.3 In the year 2013, upon merger of four Talukas from Panchmahal district, namely, Santrampur, Kadana, Lunavada, Khanpur and two Talukas from Kheda district, namely Balasinor and Virpur, a new district, namely, Mahisagar was created on 26.1.2013 and its operation started full-fledged from 15.8.2013. Thereafter, as the new district was created on account of district bifurcation and same was the case in respect of some other districts as well, the Rules were framed on 04.6.2016 whereby the modalities of transfer on account of district bifurcation was framed. 11.4 Accordingly, the petitioners applied for their transfer on account of district bifurcation on the basis of administrative instructions dated 4.6.2016. 11.5 As the benefits of the G.R. dated 23.5.2012 read with administrative instructions dated 4.6.2016 were not given to some of the petitioners, they preferred Special Civil Application No.2640 of 2019 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 7.7.2022. In the said order, the coordinate Bench observed that the case of the petitioners is covered by decision dated 23.7.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.9482 of 2016. In the said petition i.e. SCA No.9482 of 2016, without entering into the merits of the case, the coordinate Bench disposed of the petition by issuing certain directions. In the said order, the coordinate Bench observed that the case of the petitioners is covered by decision dated 23.7.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.9482 of 2016. In the said petition i.e. SCA No.9482 of 2016, without entering into the merits of the case, the coordinate Bench disposed of the petition by issuing certain directions. Accordingly, while disposing of SCA No.2640 of 2019, in paragraph 4, it was directed that it will be open for the petitioners to participate in the camp as and when the same is organized and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the policies contained in the Government Resolution dated 1.4.2022, as on the date of decision i.e. 7.7.2022, new policy framed by the Government vide G.R. dated 1.4.2022 had come into force. 11.6 Thereafter, it seems that the transfer camp was to be held, but the same was subsequently cancelled and thereafter a detailed representation dated 7.11.2022 was made to the respondent No.2 and thereafter also, camp was not held for district bifurcation transfers, the present petitions were filed. 11.7 In that petitions, though the ground canvassed that the facts may be some what different, but in sum and substance, by way of the present petitions, what is prayed is to direct the respondents to hold camp for district transfer of the Vidyasahayaks on account of district bifurcation. 12. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government - respondent No.2 - Director of Primary Education, the respondents took a stand that the petitioners are not eligible and entitled to claim the benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation as per the administrative instructions dated 4.6.2016 and more particularly, Clause Nos.6, 8, 9 and 10. 12.1 Similarly, a stand was taken in the affidavit-in-reply that even as per the subsequent policy i.e. G.R. dated 1.4.2022, more particularly Clause 1 of Chapter Q, also dis-entitles the petitioners to claim benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation. Reply was filed opposing the petitions the tooth and nail. Tenor of the reply was as under :- (i) Usually, district bifurcation takes place on account of two eventualities, first on account of division at the district, and second creation of a new district by merging one or more Talukas from more than one Districts. Reply was filed opposing the petitions the tooth and nail. Tenor of the reply was as under :- (i) Usually, district bifurcation takes place on account of two eventualities, first on account of division at the district, and second creation of a new district by merging one or more Talukas from more than one Districts. (ii) As far as the first mode of creation of district bifurcation is concerned, i.e. division of district, it was submitted that from big district, by way of division of district into two district bifurcation takes place, then essentially that bifurcation is on account of division of parent district and, therefore, all the teachers serving in both the districts irrespective of whether they are affected by the bifurcation or not, are entitled to give an option. The aforesaid was done as from one original district by way of division of two districts are created and, therefore, the teachers who wish to go to new created district or to remain in the original district may exercise their options. (iii) The second way of district bifurcation as canvassed was that new district is created by not dividing one district, but by taking one or more Talukas from more than one district and thereby merging Talukas from various district, the new district is created. In that scenario, though it can be said to be district bifurcation, but the same would affect only limited Talukas or villages which have been merged as a new district for creation of new district. Therefore, though this also is because of district bifurcation but it affects only certain Talukas and, therefore, the benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation could be availed only by the teachers serving in that particular village or Taluka. Because for rest of the teachers, the Taluka or district under which they were serving prior to bifurcation and after bifurcation of district would remain the same and they would remain absolutely unaffected. Because for rest of the teachers, the Taluka or district under which they were serving prior to bifurcation and after bifurcation of district would remain the same and they would remain absolutely unaffected. (iv) By relying upon clause in the administrative instructions dated 4.6.2006, the respondents - State has taken a stand that the present petitioners are not eligible and entitled for district bifurcation transfers and when they are not eligible in view of Clause No.9 and 10 of the administrative instructions dated 4.6.2016 and subsequently G.R. dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023, when they are not eligible, there is no question of granting any relief to them by issuing a direction against the State to hold the camp for transfers by way of district bifurcation. In view of the above stand taken by the respondents, the matters were heard. 13. The applicants who preferred applications for joining the party clearly conceded before this Court that they would be affected only in case if the Court issues any direction to hold transfer camps on account of district bifurcation, because as per priority list, there is a priority given for holding transfer reference as per the aforesaid priority list, the transfer camps are required to be held in following chronology :- (i) Surplus Teacher Camp (ii) Inter District Transfer Camp (iii) District Bifurcation Transfer Camp (iv) Intra District Bifurcation Camp 14. As the applicants who preferred civil applications for being joined as party - respondents are seeking inter-district transfer. If the district bifurcation transfer camps are held prior to their parent district, the petitioners not being entitled for the same, in that eventuality, only they would be affected and, therefore, they are necessary parties to be impleaded in the main writ petitions and, therefore, it was submitted by learned advocates Ms. Vidhi Bhatt and Mr. Devnani appearing for the applicants, that at this juncture, their rights would not be affected until and unless the present petitions are allowed and district transfer camps on account of district bifurcation is directed to be held. 15. Learned advocates Mr. R. D. Kinariwala, Gaurav Chudasama and Jay N. Shah appearing for the respective petitioners in this group of petitions made following submissions :- 15.1 That Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 or G.Rs. 15. Learned advocates Mr. R. D. Kinariwala, Gaurav Chudasama and Jay N. Shah appearing for the respective petitioners in this group of petitions made following submissions :- 15.1 That Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 or G.Rs. dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 is concerned, the same is in respect of transfer on account of district bifurcation and it does not limit or restrict the transfer only in respect of the teachers serving in a particular Taluka or District which is affected on account of district bifurcation. in fact, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in other district like Arvalli, the State Government appeared in petition whereby similar prayer was made to hold the district transfer camp and in those districts, district transfer camps were held, the State Government never questioned the eligibility of the concerned petitioners to seek transfer on account of district bifurcation and, therefore, when the petitioners of Arvalli district were treated differently, there is no point or reason for the State to give a discriminatory treatment to the present petitioners by objecting to their legitimate right of seeking transfer on account of district bifurcation. 15.2 That in the past, the coordinate Bench has directed the respondents to hold the district transfer camp in respect of district bifurcation and such orders have attained finality and those orders are in fact implemented as well. 15.3 Reliance is placed upon the order dated 28.3.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.13100 of 2023 in the case of Patel Kirankumar Shankarbhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others praying for a direction to the respondents to conduct the bifurcation camp as per the order dated 28.6.2023 and allow the district bifurcation camp to be held for the teachers according to their seniority and category, coming from Sabarkantha and going to Aravalli district. The attention of the Court is invited to the observations made in paragraph 9 of the said order wherein it is observed that the petitioners are waiting in queue for the district bifurcation camp to be held from the year 2016. While disposing the said petition, the coordinate Bench has directed the respondents to conduct district bifurcation camp at the earliest for the Sabarkantha and Aravalli districts. While disposing the said petition, the coordinate Bench has directed the respondents to conduct district bifurcation camp at the earliest for the Sabarkantha and Aravalli districts. 15.4 Further reliance is placed upon an interim order dated 21.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No.26253 of 2022 and allied group matters, more particularly observations made in paragraphs 4 to 13 of the said order, which reads as under:- "4. Learned advocates appearing for petitioners, while placing reliance on the instructions dated 04.06.2016 issued by Director of Education, Gandhinagar, more particularly instructions No.1 and 3 as well as 9, has submitted that neither the instructions nor the provisions of resolution dated 01.04.2022, in any manner stipulate that the teachers, who are being effected by forming a new district, are barred from opting transfer in the newly formed district. It is submitted by them that Mahisagar district has been formed from 6 Talukas, 04 from Panchmahals and 02 from Kheda District. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid provisions and the provisions of Chapter-Q, Clause-1 of the policy dated 01.04.2022, the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment, which are being extended to be similarly situated teachers of other districts namely Junagadh, Gir, Surendranagar, Morbi and Rajkot etc., as mentioned in the communication dated 01.11.2022. Learned advocates have further submitted that even those teachers, who were not working in the Talukas, which have been transferred or allocated to the newly formed district, are also being considered for seeking transfer and their camps are also ordered to be organized. It is submitted that lastly, in the year 2016, such exercise was undertaken and the camps were organized accordingly all the petitioners have filled up their forms opting for Mahisagar district, however, the said camps were never held and after a period of six years, when such camps, were ordered to be organized, the same are cancelled in view of communication dated 01/03.11.2022. Thus, it is submitted by them that the respondents may be directed to hold their camps along with other districts, which are mentioned in the communication dated 03.11.2022. 5. Thus, it is submitted by them that the respondents may be directed to hold their camps along with other districts, which are mentioned in the communication dated 03.11.2022. 5. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Ronak Raval, on instructions from Mr.Pradip Patel, Legal Officer from the Office of the Director of Primary Education, who is present before this Court, has submitted that the petitioners have no right to seek directions for holding the camps for the category no.2 of the communication dated 01.11.2022 and the same has been precisely cancelled by the impugned communication dated 01/03.11.2022. It is submitted that all the petitioners are the teachers, who are in Panchmahals and Kheda Districts. It is submitted that Mahisagar district was formed by six talukas namely Lunawada, Santrampur, Kadana and Khanpur from Panchmahals district and Balasinor and Mirpur from Kheda district. It is submitted that only those teachers can seek transfer, who are working in this six talukas and not otherwise. Learned AGP has submitted that in case, it is found that the policy of the State Government is violated and other teachers, who are not working in the Talukas, and are not shifted into the newly formed district, the State authorities will cancel all those transfers after undertaking necessary exercise. It is submitted, on instructions, that in case it is found that in the talukas of Junagadh, Surendranagar, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Vadodara, Sabarkantha districts, which are mentioned in the communication dated 01.11.2022, the policy of the State Government is violated and the teachers, who are not forming part of the talukas of new district, are also transferred, their transfer order would be cancelled. 6. At this stage, without examining anything on merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither the instructions dated 04.06.2016 nor Chapter-Q, Clause-1 of the policy dated 01.04.2022, present any scenario as projected by learned AGP. There is no provision stating that only those teachers, who are serving in the talukas of the newly formed district, can be given option for being accommodated or transferred from the other districts to the newly formed district. It is the case of the State authority that the teachers working in six talukas of Mahisagar district can only avail such benefit. 7. It is the case of the State authority that the teachers working in six talukas of Mahisagar district can only avail such benefit. 7. The perusal of the instructions No.1, 3 and 9 of the instructions dated 04.06.2016 read with Chapter-Q, Clause 1 of the policy dated 01.04.2022, suggest that all the teachers are granted option to opt for either newly formed district or to go to the former district in case their talukas have been merged in the newly formed district. 8. The respondent authorities had undertaken the exercise for holding the camps in the year 2016, when the newly formed district Mahisagar was formed from Panchmahals and Kheda Districts. The petitioners had also filled in the option forms, however, the camps were cancelled and after a period of six years, the authorities issued instructions dated 01.11.2022 holding the camps for seven districts, as mentioned in such communication and Panchmahals and Kheda Districts are notified at Serial No.2 of such instructions. However, by an unreasoned order in a single line, the Joint Director, Gandhinagar has cancelled the holdings of camps vide communication dated 01/03.11.2022. 9. Thus, the petitioners, who were in the hope that they would get the benefit of the policy of State Government, after a period of six years, are constrained to file these petitions seeking such directions. 10. Under these circumstances, issue NOTICE returnable by 19.01.2023. 11. It is directed that in case, the camps of other districts are held as per communication dated 01.11.2022, the pendency of the writ petitions may not be construed as a factor against the present petitioners. It is further directed that the respondent authorities shall place all the details of transfer of the other districts mentioned in the communication dated 01.11.2022, indicating the transfer of teachers of each talukas and vice-versa. Such affidavit shall be filed on or before next date of hearing. 12. By pointing out Clause-7 of Chapter-Q of the policy dated 01.04.2022, the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that the respondent authorities can hold the transfer for inter-district camps only after the list of those teachers, who seek transfer on bifurcation of the districts is exhausted. 13. In these circumstances, it is clarified that in case, the respondents hold any inter-district transfer for Mahisagar district, such transfers would be subject to result of these petitions. 13. In these circumstances, it is clarified that in case, the respondents hold any inter-district transfer for Mahisagar district, such transfers would be subject to result of these petitions. In all the transfer orders, the respondent authorities shall incorporate such conditions. In case, the writ petitions are allowed in favour of the petitioners, all such teachers will have to be shifted to other districts." 15.5 It was submitted that G.R. is required to be read as a whole and the purpose of the G.R. is required to be seen. One is required to consider that the G.R. is in respect of the teachers who are from the districts which are bifurcated and, therefore, the aforesaid G.R. provides a relief to the hardship to the teachers who have suffered who are serving in district which are sought to be bifurcated. The G.R. does not give the benefit only to the teachers who are affected on account of district bifurcation, but the G.R. is general in nature as can be seen from perusal of the administrative instructions or G.Rs, as the case may be. Therefore, now this micro dissection of G.Rs by the State Government and to interpret it in a way suitable to the State is absolutely impermissible. 15.6 It was also submitted that when in respect of other districts like Arvalli, Gir Somnath, Junagadh, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Rajkot, Surendranagar and Morbi, the persons who opted for transfer on account of district bifurcation were granted benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation by holding transfer camps, the present petitioners are treated in an absolutely different manner by questioning their entitlement and, therefore, this discriminatory treatment may not be allowed by this Court by directing the respondents to hold the transfer camps in accordance with the provisions of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. 15.7 Reliance was placed on the decision dated 5.5.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7668 of 2019 in the case of Alpeshkumar Popatbhai Jivani v. State of Gujarat. 15.7 Reliance was placed on the decision dated 5.5.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7668 of 2019 in the case of Alpeshkumar Popatbhai Jivani v. State of Gujarat. While deciding the said petition, the coordinate Bench though considered Clause 9 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, the Court formed an opinion that Clause 9 would not be applicable to the facts of the case and the same is only an example and, therefore, when Clause 9 has already been considered by the coordinate Bench and the State Government's stand was not accepted, this Court may not take different view and direct the authorities to hold the district bifurcation transfer camp and extend the benefit of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. 15.8 That while passing the interim order dated 21.12.2022 by the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.26253 of 2022, taking note of the statement made by learned AGP on the basis of instructions received from the Legal Officer, office of the District Primary Education, that in some of the districts, more particularly, in respect of Junagadh, Surendranagar, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Vadodara and Sabarkantha, if any transfer orders are issued in contravention of the Government Policies for district bifurcation transfer, such transfer would be cancelled. However, as per the petitioners, the State Government had not acted in accordance with such statement and the persons who are beneficiaries of an illegal transfer are continuously performing their duties at a transferred place and only a false promise has come from the State Government that their transfer would be cancelled. However, as such, by allowing them to work on the transferred place in violation of the Government Policy for district bifurcation transfer, such illegal acts are not now being perpetuated by the State Government by not taking any action against the teachers who are transferred and, therefore, when handful of persons are permitted to work at a transferred place, the petitioners also must be extended the similar benefits. 15.9 That when petitions were preferred with similar prayer by the persons seeking their transfer from the district on account of district bifurcation, the State did not object such transfer on the ground of eligibility and entitlement by filing any detailed affidavit and for some extraneous reason, such objection has come from the State Government only in respect of the present set of petitions which shows discriminatory treatment to the petitioners. 15.10 That in furtherance of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023, the State Government on 15.9.2016 has issued one more Circular and provided the same additional modalities which benefits were granted to the persons who gave options for transfer on account of district bifurcation and who wanted to go to Mahisagar district. At this juncture, the above submission was objected by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Tirthraj Pandya by stating that the aforesaid administrative instructions dated 15.9.2016 is issued only in furtherance of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 and the entire issue is now being misdirected by the petitioners simply for the reason that the State is objecting the petitioners' prayer to issue direction for holding transfer camp on account of district bifurcation. The objection of the State is in respect of their eligibility and entitlement and, therefore, the State Government has implemented its policy specially as per the policies which have been in force from time to time and, therefore, reliance placed on administrative instructions dated 15.9.2016 is absolutely misconceived and may not be considered. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, Mr. Aditya Davda, Mr. Sanjay Udhwani and Ms. Nirali Sarda, Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the State Government, has made the following submissions :- 16.1 That there are allegations made against the Officers of the State Government and the allegations are to the effect that the present petitioners are given discriminatory treatment as for the first time, the eligibility of the petitioners to seek transfer on account of district bifurcation are objected. In the past, though number of such petitions were preferred before this Court, in those petitions, the State Government had only taken a stand about the eligibility of a person to claim the benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation. In the past, though number of such petitions were preferred before this Court, in those petitions, the State Government had only taken a stand about the eligibility of a person to claim the benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation. The said allegations are baseless simply for the reason that decision relied upon by the petitioners dated 28.3.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.13100 of 2023 in the case of Patel Kirankumar Shankarbhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others is in respect of district bifurcation of Arvalli district from Sabarkantha. The policy right from the inception is very clear that whenever a district bifurcation takes place on account of division of district, the persons who are serving in the undivided district will have an option to choose in which district they want to serve where the erstwhile original district or the newly created district as Arvalli district was created on account of division from Sabarkantha district, all the persons serving in original Sabarkantha district were given option to choose the district in which they want to serve. Therefore, they were granted benefit of district bifurcation and, therefore, at the relevant point of time, as they were eligible for claiming transfer on the basis of district bifurcation, the said benefit was granted to them pursuant to Court's order and that petition was not objected as they were meeting with the criteria. 16.2 That there are another set of allegations that some of the persons who are wrongly given the benefit of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 are still serving at a transferred place though a specific statement was made on 21.12.2022 before the coordinate Bench. In response to the same, a set of papers were handed over to this Court across the bar by learned AGP which consisted orders dated 2.12.2024 whereby the persons who were illegally granted benefit of district bifurcation transfers, their transfer orders were cancelled. Along with the said papers, certificates dated 2.12.2024 of concerned District Primary Education Officer i.e. Gir Somnath, Chhota Udepur, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Botad, Mahisagar at Lunavada, Arvalli along with the reply received by the concerned DPEO on 3.12.2024 stating that no persons are in service who had wrongly claimed benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation. The said documents are taken on record. The said documents are taken on record. Hence, all the errors which have been committed by the State Government in past have been rectified. Hence, the State is absolutely serious in ensuring that the policy of the State in respect of transfer on account of district bifurcation is done specially in accordance with the policy of the State Government and no person can avail the benefit of such transfers by claiming undue advantage for the same. 16.3 That the petitioners herein are claiming transfer to Mahisagar district which was created by merging four Talukas from Panchmahal and two Talukas from Kheda district and that is how, the petitioners would be governed by Clause Nos.9 and 10 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 and Clause 1 of Chapter Q of Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. Therefore, this transfer is being objected and as such, there is nothing like giving any discriminatory treatment to the present petitioners, but the State has objected the present petitions only on the basis of interpretation of Government policy and not on the basis of any malafides or any grudge against the present petitioners. 16.4 That in none of these petitions, the petitioners have questioned the policy for transfer framed by the State Government vide Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. On the contrary, the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the State to hold the transfer camps as per Clause Q of the Government Resolution dated 1.4.2022 issued by the Education Department. In absence of any challenge to any of the Clauses or rational of the transfer policy, the transfer policy is required to be seen as it is. Therefore, before issuance of direction, the Court may consider the objection of the State Government that the petitioners are not even entitled to seek transfer on account of district bifurcation in view of the policy of the State Government. When the petitioners have not questioned the policy of the State Government, at this juncture, now the petitioners cannot pray for a relief which runs contrary to the policy of the State Government. When the petitioners have not questioned the policy of the State Government, at this juncture, now the petitioners cannot pray for a relief which runs contrary to the policy of the State Government. Therefore, the eligibility and entitlement to seek the benefit flowing from the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 could not be established by the petitioners unless it is held by the Court that despite the objections by the State Government about the petitioners' eligibility and entitlement, the petitioners are eligible to claim transfer on the basis of this policy, direction to hold the transfer camp by district bifurcation may not be granted. 16.5 That none of the petitioners are affected on account of the district bifurcation as all these petitions are preferred in respect of district bifurcation of Panchmahals and Kheda from which a new district called Mahisagar was created on account of merger of four Talukas of Panchmahals, namely, Santrampur, Kadana, Lunavada, Khanpur and two Talukas of Kheda district, namely, Balasinor and Virpur. Therefore, Clause Nos.9 and 10 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 and Clause 1 of Chapter Q of Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 will have an important role to play in determining the question about the eligibility of the petitioner. According to learned AGP Mr. Pandya, Clause Nos.9 and 10 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 are pari materia to the subsequent Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023, more particularly, Clause 1 of Chapter Q which provides that upon bifurcation of a district, if a person serving in the Talukas or Villages which is affected on account of district bifurcation, then in that case, a teacher serving in that Taluka or Village only would be entitled to seek transfer on the ground of district bifurcation. It is an undisputed fact that none of the present petitioners are affected on account of district bifurcation and creation of Mahisagar from Panchmahals and Kheda districts. All these petitioners even prior to district bifurcation were serving in respective Talukas or villages of Panchmahals or Kheda which remained with the said district even after bifurcation. It is an undisputed fact that none of the present petitioners are affected on account of district bifurcation and creation of Mahisagar from Panchmahals and Kheda districts. All these petitioners even prior to district bifurcation were serving in respective Talukas or villages of Panchmahals or Kheda which remained with the said district even after bifurcation. When the petitioners' service condition is not affected, when they are not put under any new establishment on account of any bifurcation and everything has remained the same, merely because one part of the district is merged with the one part of another district and new district is created, the policy of transfer on account of district bifurcation would not confer any right in favour of the petitioners to seek transfer on the basis of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. 16.6 That the intention of the State Government behind the policy of the transfer is also equally important and the Court is required to look into that intention as well. Merely because the G.R.s or administrative instructions are issued for the purpose of transfer on account of district bifurcation, would not make any person serving in that district eligible to claim benefit of the said policy, more particularly, when the district bifurcation takes place in two different modes i.e. by division of a district and by merger of a few Talukas of more than one district. The G.R. or the instructions is a composite GR in respect of both the modes and, therefore, it prescribed that whenever the district bifurcation takes place on account of division of a district, a person serving in both the district is entitled to seek transfer on account of district bifurcation. But that bifurcation takes place on account of merger of a few Talukas of more than one district. By way of Clause Nos.9 and 10 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 and Clause No.1 of Chapter Q of Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023, only a person who is affected on account of district bifurcation who is serving in Taluka or village which has become part of new district, would be eligible and entitled to claim the benefit on the basis of aforesaid policy. When the policy itself is not under challenge, the policy is required to be adhered to strictly and the same is required to be followed by the State Government as it is and in toto. When it was noticed by the State Government that the transfers have taken place by deviating to the aforesaid policy of the State Government, the State Government has taken all possible steps to ensure that such transfers are cancelled and even the explanations were also called for from the respective Officer who has allegedly committed such mistake which would indicate State's commitment to strictly follow the policy. Therefore, when the State has taken all possible action to ensure that the policy of the State Government for district bifurcation transfer is implemented in the same manner as it was designed, it would not be open for the petitioners to canvass that they are eligible for transfer on account of district bifurcation and accordingly, seek a direction to hold the camp for district transfer. 16.7 As far as the reliance placed by the petitioners on the interim order dated 21.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No.26253 of 2022 and allied group matters, it was submitted by learned AGP that the aforesaid observations made in an interim order, the same would not bind this Court and hence, the aforesaid observations will have persuasive value only. Before making the observations in the said order, the coordinate Bench in paragraph 6 has specifically stated that at this stage, without examining anything on merits and thereafter, the opinion was formed and, therefore, when the above opinion was formed only on the basis of submissions made by advocate and without interpreting the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 or the Government Resolution dated 1.4.2022, the issue can be said to be still open at large before this Court. Therefore, this Court may take an independent view by taking into consideration the overall intention behind issuance of the above policy. That as the G.Rs. Therefore, this Court may take an independent view by taking into consideration the overall intention behind issuance of the above policy. That as the G.Rs. includes both the types of bifurcation by way of division or by way of merger of Talukas and villages, all the persons who are covered on account of district bifurcation by way of division, though are entitled to opt for transfer on account of district bifurcation in case if the district bifurcation has taken place on account of merger of Talukas, only person serving in the affected Talukas are entitled to such transfers and, therefore, the said interim order would not help the present petitioners. 16.8 As far as the reliance placed by the petitioners on the order dated 28.3.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.13100 of 2023 in the case of Patel Kirankumar Shankarbhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others, the said decision was rendered in respect of district bifurcation camps which were to be held on account of division of Sabarkantha district into Arvalli district, such bifurcation would entitle the petitioners to seek transfer in light of Clause No.1 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016. Therefore, as Arvalli district was created by dividing Sabarkantha district, the same is in respect of division of district and not creation of district by merging more than two Talukas and, therefore, that case would fall under Clause No.1 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, whereas the case of the petitioners would fall under Clause Nos.9 and 10 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 as Mahisagar district was created on account of merger of two Talukas from more than one district and, therefore, the source or the mode of district bifurcation is different and the GRs are not under challenge, the petitioners are not entitled to seek the reliefs which they have prayed for. 16.9 As far as the reliance placed by the petitioners on the decision dated 5.5.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7668 of 2019, it was submitted by learned AGP Mr. 16.9 As far as the reliance placed by the petitioners on the decision dated 5.5.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7668 of 2019, it was submitted by learned AGP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya that while remanding the matter, the Court has not interpreted about the eligibility or entitlement of the petitioners and in paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Court has specifically observed that Clause 9 in the opinion of the Court would not be applicable in the facts of the present case on hand and after remand, when each of the case of the petitioners was considered, the Director of Primary Education has by taking into consideration Clause Nos.9 and 10 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 have not granted benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation to the petitioners vide order dated 19.7.2022 and that order has attained finality. Therefore, there is no question of deviating from the past practice. The order dated 19.7.2022 passed is already on record of Special Civil Application No.25077 of 2022 (Annexure R-2 page 274). 16.10 By pointing out averments made in paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-reply in Civil Application No.1 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No.5743 of 2022, it was submitted by learned AGP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya that on 27.6.2016, district bifurcation camp was already held in Mahisagar District and all the eligible candidates who were eligible to claim their transfer on the basis of district bifurcation were considered and as on date, as per the policy of the State Government, there is no application / transfer on account of district bifurcation of the affected persons is pending and hence, the prayer of the petitioners in these petitions is absolutely misconceived. 16.11 It was also pointed out that in all these petitions, the camps for transfer of Vidyasahayaks, though were held are to be on hold on account of the statements made by concerned District Primary Education Officers, this Court may relieve them from such statements made by them so as to enable the State Government to proceed further with the transfer camp. By making the above submissions, they prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 17. Ms. Vidhi Bhatt and Mr. Devnani, learned advocates appearing for the newly added respondents have in principle adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders. By making the above submissions, they prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 17. Ms. Vidhi Bhatt and Mr. Devnani, learned advocates appearing for the newly added respondents have in principle adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders. They further submitted that the newly added respondents are the persons who are eligible for inter district transfer and in some of the cases, they have already exercised their option, but in the midst of the camp, on account of statement made by concerned DPEO in the present proceedings that they will not go on with the transfer camp, the transfers of the newly joined respondents are put on hold at present and, therefore, they are directly affected and in case if the case of the petitioners is accepted, in case if the respondents are directed to hold transfer camps on account of district bifurcation, that would prejudice the case of the newly added respondents and, therefore, this Court may not grant reliefs in favour of the petitioners, more particularly, when the State has successfully demonstrated that the petitioners are not eligible or entitled for transfer on account of district bifurcation. By making the above submissions, they have prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 18. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, there are certain facts which could not be disputed by the petitioners which are as under :- 18.1 In all the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a relief of holding the transfer camp on the basis of district bifurcation and in none of the petitions, the petitioners have challenged Clause Nos.9 and 10 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 or Clause 1 of Chapter Q of the G.R. dated 1.4.2022 or 11.5.2023. Even at the time of dictation of this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out from the respective prayers that there is challenge to Clause Nos.9 and 10 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 or Clause 1 of Chapter Q of the G.R. dated 1.4.2022 or 11.5.2023. Even at the time of dictation of this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out from the respective prayers that there is challenge to Clause Nos.9 and 10 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 or Clause 1 of Chapter Q of the G.R. dated 1.4.2022 or 11.5.2023. 18.2 In all these petitions, not in one petition, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners could point out that prior to district bifurcation, the petitioner was serving in X district and upon district bifurcation, his service conditions is changed and on account of district bifurcation, now he will have to serve in Y district, meaning thereby even though the district bifurcation has taken place, the district under which the petitioners were serving prior to district bifurcation, the petitioners have continued to serve in the same district even after district bifurcation. 18.3 The petitioners also could not dispute the fact that Mahisagar district was newly created district by merging four Talukas from Panchmahals, namely, Santrampur, Kadana, Lunavada, Khanpur and two Talukas of Kheda district, namely, Balasinor and Virpur. Meaning thereby, creation of Mahisagar district was on account of merger of some Talukas from Panchmahals and Kheda district and the same was not created on account of division of bigger district into two small districts and, therefore, the case of the petitioners for district bifurcation is required to be considered in light of the policy of the creation of new district on account of merger of Talukas of two districts and not in respect of the creation of a new district on account of division. Therefore, the entire controversy is now required to be looked into and tested in light of the above undisputed facts which could not be disputed either from the record or during the course of submissions by any of learned advocates appearing for the petitioners. 18.4 Therefore, now first this Court is required to look into the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 which is the basis behind all these petitions. Clause 1 of the said Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, which according to the petitioners would benefit them, read as under :- "1. 18.4 Therefore, now first this Court is required to look into the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 which is the basis behind all these petitions. Clause 1 of the said Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, which according to the petitioners would benefit them, read as under :- "1. In the cases where new districts have come into existence by way of division of district, in that case, before division of district, if a person was appointed as head teacher (HTAT/Primary Teacher/ Higher Primary Teacher/Vidyasahayak), in that case, those teachers can give an option to seek transfer from and to original district to newly created district and newly created district to original district." Clause 9 of the said Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 read as under :- "9. In the process of district division and creation of new district, the State Government has merged some certain Talukas from one district to another district, like from Surendranagar district Halvad Taluka is merged into Morbi district, in similar cases, the Talukas which are merged in other district in those cases, teachers who are working in the Taluka which is merged in new district, if wants to go to the original district, or they want to continue in the newly created district, they can exercise the option and accordingly, their actions are required to be considered." 18.5 Clause 10 is also on similar line, but the same is in respect of villages and not talukas and, therefore, Clause Nos.9 and 10 are more or less similar. 18.6 What is important which the Court has found while perusing the Administrative Instruction dated 4.6.2016 is the fact that there are two words used in the entire G.R., more particularly, in Clause Nos.8, 9 and 10 that "Jilla Vibhajan (Division of District)" and "Jilla Navrachna (Creation of new district)". The entire confusion is probably has caused on account of the word "district bifurcation". In fact, the G.R. or instructions is not in respect of district bifurcation only, as can be seen from the subject of the instructions dated 4.6.2016, the same includes both district division and newly created district. The subject reads as for giving options to the primary teachers on account of creation of new district due to district division. In fact, the G.R. or instructions is not in respect of district bifurcation only, as can be seen from the subject of the instructions dated 4.6.2016, the same includes both district division and newly created district. The subject reads as for giving options to the primary teachers on account of creation of new district due to district division. Clause No.1 specifically talks about creation of new district on account of division of original district wheres clause Nos.8, 9 and 10 speaks about the districts which are newly created on account of merger of some Talukas or Villages from two districts. Similarly, G.R. dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 Clause 1 of Chapter Q specifically distinguishes that under what circumstances, a person can give option for transfer on account of district bifurcation and if the same has taken place on account of division of district, then in that case, a person who is serving in original district can opt for a transfer to a newly created district and vice a versa. It also provides that if entire Taluka is merged into some other district, in that case, only the person serving in the said Taluka which is affected on account of district bifurcation can give option to either to stay in newly created district or go back to original district and similar is the case in respect of village. Meaning thereby that the draftsman of the policy were absolutely clear in their mind at the time when the policy was framed for the first time on 4.6.2016 and the same has been followed even in the subsequent G. R. dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. In view of this Court, there is no ambiguity about the eligibility of a person in either of these policies and, therefore, it is the policy clearly indicates that the benefit of transfer on account of district bifurcation can be claimed only by the affected person whose particular Taluka is affected in case if it is a case of creation of a new district on account of merger of certain Talukas. It is not the case of the present petitioners that the new district was created on account of division of one district. 18.7 Accordingly, as per the policy itself, only those petitioners are eligible to claim the transfer on account of district bifurcation in case if their talukas are affected on account of district bifurcation. It is not the case of the present petitioners that the new district was created on account of division of one district. 18.7 Accordingly, as per the policy itself, only those petitioners are eligible to claim the transfer on account of district bifurcation in case if their talukas are affected on account of district bifurcation. In the present case, none of the present petitioners talukas are affected and they continue to serve in the same Talukas prior to district bifurcation and even after district bifurcation. Therefore, their services have remained intact and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, they are not entitled to claim the benefit of the aforesaid G.R. and thereby to seek a direction for holding the transfer camp on account of district bifurcation. 18.8 Now, if the decisions relied upon by the advocates for the petitioners are considered, as stated in the foregoing paragraph, decision dated 28.3.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.13100 of 2023 in the case of Patel Kirankumar Shankarbhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others (Supra) is in respect of Arvalli district which was created on account of division of Sabarkantha district. Therefore, irrespective of whether a person is affected on account of creation of new district or not, in view of Clause 1 of Policy dated 4.6.2016, all the petitioners were granted benefit of district bifurcation and, therefore, I am inclined to accept the said submission that the reason behind not opposing the aforesaid petition was on account of the fact that Clause 1 was applicable in the aforesaid fact and, therefore, the State did not object about the eligibility of those candidates and accordingly, order dated 28.3.2024 was passed and the same was implemented. Whereas in the facts of the case on hand, creation of new district is by way of merger of talukas of two districts and, therefore, Clause 9 and 10 would come into play and, therefore, it is rightly objected by the State that the petitioners are not eligible to claim transfer under the head of district bifurcation. Whereas in the facts of the case on hand, creation of new district is by way of merger of talukas of two districts and, therefore, Clause 9 and 10 would come into play and, therefore, it is rightly objected by the State that the petitioners are not eligible to claim transfer under the head of district bifurcation. 18.9 As far as the decision dated 5.5.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7668 of 2019 in the case of Alpeshkumar Popatbhai Jivani v. State of Gujarat, relied upon by the petitioners, there also, the coordinate Bench has not interpreted Clause 9 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 and in fact, the Court has categorically observed that in the facts of the case, Clause 9 would not be applicable. However, thereafter the matter was remanded to the concerned authority and thereafter, the authority by relying upon Clause 1, 9 and 10 of the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, has rejected the claim of those petitioners which has attained finality. 19. In view of the above discussion, the following aspects emerge :- (i) The petitioners' prayer in each of this petition is only to the extent of holding the camp for district transfer on account of district bifurcation. (ii) The petitioners have not challenged the Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 and in fact, they are seeking implementation of the directions contained in the aforesaid G.R. (iii) The petitioners have not prayed for declaring them eligible for district transfer on account of district bifurcation and the petitions are preferred on a premise as if the petitioners are eligible and entitled to have the benefits of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023. (iv) Clause Nos.9 and 10 of Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016 and Clause No.1 of Chapter Q of Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023 specifically do not provide for teachers who are not affected on account of creation of new district to give an option for transfer on account of district bifurcation as the aforesaid clause specifically states that only teachers serving in the affected taluka or villages would be entitled to seek transfer on account of district bifurcation transfer. 20. 20. In view of the above, as the present petitioners cannot be said to be eligible and entitled to seek transfer on account of policy of district bifurcation framed by the State Government vide Administrative Instructions dated 4.6.2016, Government Resolutions dated 1.4.2022 and 11.5.2023, they are not eligible and entitled to claim benefits under the aforesaid G.R.s and, therefore, when the petitioners are not eligible and entitled to claim benefits of the above GRs, there is no question of issuing direction to the State Government to hold transfer camps on account of district transfer qua the present petitioners. Accordingly, all these petitions are required to be dismissed and the same are dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. The concerned District Primary Education Officers who have made a statement before this Court that no camp shall be held and if the camps were going on, pursuant to the said camps no further orders would be passed, are relieved from the said statement and are permitted to go ahead with the transfer camps which were already held during the pendency of these petitions. However, considering the fact that each of the petitioners have failed in these petitions on account of their eligibility by misreading the policy of the district transfer on account of district bifurcation and, therefore, considering the fact that they are waiting to go to Mahisagar district since 2016 as well as considering the fact that this kind of policies are framed by the State just to extend the scope and sphere of benefit of the policy to the maximum number of people, if the petitioners make appropriate representation before the appropriate authority, it will be open for the State Government to take a decision in accordance with law or by framing a new policy as the State may deem appropriate. However, no directions for such can be issued by this Court once the petitions are dismissed. In view of dismissal of petitions, connected civil applications also stand disposed of. In view of order passed in the civil applications filed by the applicants for being joined as parties - respondents, the same are allowed as observed in the foregoing paragraph. However, no directions for such can be issued by this Court once the petitions are dismissed. In view of dismissal of petitions, connected civil applications also stand disposed of. In view of order passed in the civil applications filed by the applicants for being joined as parties - respondents, the same are allowed as observed in the foregoing paragraph. At this stage, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners submit that in view of the statement made by the concerned DPEO, the camp for inter district transfers were put on hold, this Court may extend the aforesaid relief which are operating in favour of the petitioners. The relief was tooth and nail opposed by learned AGPs and learned advocates Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt and Mr. Devnani. However, considering the fact that the aforesaid statement was a voluntary statement made by the concerned DPEOs and in view of the elaborate discussion above and in view of the fact that the petitions are dismissed and the petitioners are held not entitled to claim benefit of the above policies, no such request can be entertained the same is rejected accordingly.