District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to issue teacher transfer orders; only the appointing authority may do so.

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Dakhin Doboka P. Adarsha LPS, challenged an order dated 20 June 2024 by which the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferred him to Balipathar Jurapukhuri LPS.

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

The State authorities argued that the power to transfer teachers was vested in the departmental and district authorities and that the transfer had been undertaken under the 2020 Act.

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

Whether the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 was liable to be set aside for having been issued without jurisdiction.

Whether setting aside the impugned 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 respectively identify the appointing authority, teacher categories/cadres and competent authority.

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 transfer proposal to the competent authority; the competent authority may then recommend the transfer to the concerned appointing authority, which alone may issue the transfer order.

The Court further 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 prescribed manner, 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.

Although Section 9 permits the District Commissioner to act in specified exigencies, the statutory role is limited to referring a proposal to the competent authority. The competent authority must consider the proposal and recommend it to the appointing authority, which alone possesses the power to issue the transfer order.

Since the impugned order was directly issued by the District Commissioner, without the statutory proposal-and-recommendation process and without authority to pass the final transfer order, it was ultra vires and ex facie without jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that the decision was confined to the jurisdictional defect and 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 accordingly disposed of.