A District Commissioner cannot directly transfer teachers; only the appointing authority may issue transfer orders.

The petitioner, a teacher, challenged the transfer order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him from Marwari Hindi L.P. School to 541 No. Ashinagar Maqtab.

He contended that the District Commissioner lacked statutory jurisdiction to transfer teachers under the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020.

The State respondents argued that the power to transfer and post teachers was vested in the competent departmental authorities, including district-level authorities, under the 2020 Act.

Whether the District Commissioner, Hojai, had jurisdiction under the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020, to directly issue a transfer order in respect of the petitioner.

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 22.06.2024 was liable to be set aside as ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

The Court applied the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020.

Under Section 2(a), the “appointing authority” is the authority prescribed under the applicable service rules; under Section 2(c), the “competent authority” comprises the State Level Committee or District Level Committee constituted under Section 5.

Section 9 authorises the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner, in specified exigencies concerning academic atmosphere, peace and tranquillity, or the safety and security of a female teacher, only to refer a proposal for transfer to the competent authority; the competent authority must consider the proposal and recommend it to the concerned appointing authority, which alone may issue the transfer order.

The Court also applied the principle that where a statute vests power in a particular authority, that power must be exercised only by that authority and in the manner prescribed by law, relying on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1951 SCC 1088.

Section 9 did not confer an independent power of transfer on the District Commissioner.

It permitted the District Commissioner, after observing the prescribed formalities and being satisfied that a specified exigency existed, to refer the matter to the competent authority.

The competent authority was then required to consider the proposal and recommend it to the petitioner’s appointing authority, which alone could issue the transfer order.

Since the District Commissioner was not the petitioner’s appointing authority and no statutory provision authorised him to directly transfer the petitioner, the order dated 22.06.2024 was issued without jurisdiction and beyond the power conferred by the 2020 Act.

The order was therefore ultra vires the statute.

Accordingly, the transfer order dated 22.06.2024, insofar as it concerned the petitioner, was set aside.

The Court clarified that its decision did not prevent the authorities from issuing a fresh transfer order through the legally prescribed process, or from initiating disciplinary proceedings, including placing the petitioner under suspension if otherwise warranted.

The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.