District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to transfer teachers; only the appointing authority may issue transfer orders.

The petitioner, Dilip Paul, an elementary-school teacher, challenged an order issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him from Bankim Chandra Adarsha Pathsala to Abdul Kalam Azad Maqtab.

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

The State respondents submitted that the power to transfer and post teachers was vested in the departmental authorities and that such actions were governed by the 2020 Act.

The judgment refers to the impugned order as dated 19.07.2024 in paragraph 2 and as dated 22.07.2024 in paragraphs 6 and 15.

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?

Whether the impugned transfer order was liable to be set aside for having been issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction?

Whether setting aside the impugned transfer order prevented the respondents 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 authorises the Deputy Commissioner, in specified exigencies involving academic atmosphere, peace and tranquillity, or the safety and security of a female teacher, to refer a proposal for transfer to the competent authority; it does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to issue the transfer order directly.

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

The Court also applied the settled 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, 1951 SCC 1088.

The Court found that the District Commissioner was not the petitioner’s appointing authority and that Section 9 permitted the District Commissioner only to refer a transfer proposal to the competent authority in the specified exigencies.

The statutory scheme required the competent authority to consider the proposal and recommend it to the appointing authority, which alone could issue the transfer order.

Since the impugned order had been directly issued by the District Commissioner, without the statutory process and without an express conferral of such power, it was beyond the authority granted by the 2020 Act and therefore ultra vires.

Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 22.07.2024, 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 in accordance with law or from initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings, including placing the petitioner under suspension if warranted.

The writ petition was consequently disposed of.