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

The petitioner, a teacher, challenged the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him from Swahid Choudhury LP to Tengatoli LPS.

He contended that the District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020, to directly transfer an elementary-school teacher.

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

Whether the District Commissioner is empowered under the Assam Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (Regulation of Posting and Transfer) Act, 2020, to directly issue an order transferring a teacher.

Whether the transfer order dated 20 June 2024, issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

Whether setting aside the transfer order precludes the competent 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 respectively define the “appointing authority,” “category or cadre,” and “competent authority.”

Section 9 permits the Deputy Commissioner/District 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 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 and that Section 9 did not confer an independent power upon the District Commissioner to issue a transfer order.

His statutory role was limited to referring a proposal to the competent authority in the specified exigencies. The competent authority was thereafter required to consider the proposal and recommend it to the appointing authority, which alone could issue the transfer order.

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

Accordingly, the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 was set aside insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

The Court clarified that its decision would not prevent the respondent authorities from issuing a fresh transfer order in accordance with law or from initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings, including suspension if warranted.

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