District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to 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 Teralangchu Bishnupriya LP School to Karaiguri MKB.

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

The State authorities submitted 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.

The Court examined the statutory scheme, particularly the definitions of “appointing authority” and “competent authority” and Section 9 concerning the role of the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner.

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

Whether the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 was ultra vires and liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Section 2(a) of the 2020 Act defines the “appointing authority” as the authority specified under the applicable service rules, and Section 2(c) defines 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.

Where a statute vests power in a particular authority, that power must be exercised only by that authority and in the prescribed manner, unless expressly delegated, relying on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088.

The petitioner’s appointing authority was not the District Commissioner.

Under Section 9, the District Commissioner could, after observing the prescribed formalities and satisfying himself regarding a statutory exigency, refer a proposal to the competent authority.

The competent authority could then recommend the transfer to the petitioner’s appointing authority, which alone was competent to issue the final transfer order.

Since the impugned order was directly issued by the District Commissioner and there was no statutory provision conferring upon him the power to issue the transfer order, the order was beyond his jurisdiction and ultra vires the 2020 Act.

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

The Court clarified that its decision did not prevent the 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.