A District Commissioner may recommend teacher transfers but cannot issue transfer orders.

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Dighaljar MKB, challenged the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him to Dakhin Mikirpara LP.

He contended that the District Commissioner lacked statutory jurisdiction to directly transfer an elementary-school teacher 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 under the 2020 Act.

The Court examined Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 5 and 9 of the Act.

Whether the District Commissioner was statutorily empowered to directly issue an order transferring the petitioner under the 2020 Act?

Whether the impugned transfer order was ultra vires and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction?

Whether setting aside the impugned order prevented the competent 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 designated under the applicable service rules; 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/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 further applied the principle that where a statutory power is conferred upon 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, reported in 1951 SCC 1088.

The Court held that Section 9 did not confer an independent power upon the District Commissioner to transfer a teacher.

The District Commissioner could, after observing the prescribed formalities and forming the requisite satisfaction, refer a transfer proposal 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 issue the transfer order, the order dated 20 June 2024 was issued without jurisdiction and beyond the authority conferred by the 2020 Act.

The defect was therefore jurisdictional, rendering the order ultra vires.

The decision did not prevent the competent authorities from considering and issuing a fresh transfer order in accordance with law.

It also did not bar the authorities from initiating disciplinary proceedings or placing the petitioner under suspension, if otherwise warranted.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.