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

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Uttar Hojai Nimna Buniadi School, challenged the transfer order dated 19 July 2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him to 311 No. Nikhari Mukh LPS.

The petitioner contended that the District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue a teacher-transfer order 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 departmental and district authorities and that the transfer had been undertaken under the 2020 Act.

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 19 July 2024 was liable to be set aside for having been issued without jurisdiction?

3. Whether setting aside the transfer order would prevent the authorities from issuing a fresh transfer order or initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner?

The Court applied Sections 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020, which distinguish the appointing authority, teacher categories/cadres and competent authority respectively.

Section 9 authorises the Deputy Commissioner, in specified exigencies involving academic atmosphere, peace and tranquillity, or the safety and security of a female teacher, only to refer a transfer proposal 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 settled principle that where a statutory power is conferred on a particular authority, it must be exercised only by that authority and in the manner prescribed by law, unless the power is expressly or validly delegated, relying on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1951 SCC 1088.

The Court found that the District Commissioner was not the petitioner’s appointing authority and that Section 9 did not confer any independent power on the District Commissioner to directly transfer a teacher.

Under the statutory scheme, the District Commissioner could only submit or refer a proposal in the prescribed exigencies; the competent authority was required to consider the proposal and recommend it to the appointing authority, which alone could issue the transfer order.

Since the impugned order was issued directly by the District Commissioner and not by the competent appointing authority pursuant to the statutory process, it was ultra vires and ex facie without jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the transfer order dated 19 July 2024, insofar as it concerned the petitioner, was set aside.

The Court clarified that this limited interference did not prevent the respondent authorities from issuing a fresh transfer order after considering the necessity in accordance with law, or from initiating disciplinary proceedings, including placing the petitioner under suspension if warranted.

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