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

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Adarsha Prathamick Bidyalay, challenged the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring the petitioner to Kandhulimari L.P.

The petitioner contended that the District Commissioner lacked statutory jurisdiction to issue a teacher-transfer order under the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020.

The State authorities maintained that the power to transfer and post teachers was vested in the departmental and district authorities under the 2020 Act.

The writ petition therefore concerned the legality and jurisdictional validity of the transfer order.

1. Whether the District Commissioner had statutory authority under the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020, to directly issue an order transferring the petitioner.

2. Whether the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 was liable to be set aside as being without jurisdiction and ultra vires the 2020 Act.

3. Whether setting aside the impugned transfer order precluded the authorities from issuing a fresh transfer order or initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

The Court applied the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020. Section 2(a) defines the “appointing authority” as the authority specified under the applicable service rules, while Section 2(c) identifies the “competent authority” as the State Level Committee or District Level Committee constituted under Section 5.

Section 9 empowers the Deputy Commissioner, in specified exigencies concerning academic atmosphere, peace and tranquillity, or the safety and security of a female teacher, to refer a transfer proposal to the competent authority; it does not confer power to directly issue a transfer order.

The competent authority must consider the proposal and recommend it to the concerned appointing authority, which alone may issue the transfer order.

The Court further applied the principle that where a statutory power is vested in a particular authority, it must be exercised only by that authority and in the manner prescribed by law, relying on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088.

The Court found that the District Commissioner was not the petitioner’s appointing authority.

Section 9 permitted the District Commissioner only to refer a transfer proposal to the competent authority after observing the prescribed formalities and forming the requisite satisfaction; thereafter, the competent authority could recommend the transfer to the appointing authority.

Since the impugned order was directly issued by the District Commissioner, without the statutory process of reference, consideration, recommendation, and issuance by the appointing authority, it exceeded the authority conferred by the 2020 Act.

Applying the rule against exercise of statutory power by an unauthorised authority, the Court held that the transfer order was ex facie beyond jurisdiction and ultra vires the statute.

The Court clarified that its decision was confined to the jurisdictional defect in the impugned order and would not prevent the competent authorities from issuing a fresh transfer order in accordance with law or from initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings, including suspension if necessary.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.