District Commissioners cannot directly transfer teachers; only appointing authorities may issue transfer orders.

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Swami Vivekananda LPS, challenged the transfer order dated 20 June 2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him to Doboka Nala LPS

He 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 defended the action by submitting that the power relating to transfer and posting of teachers was vested in the departmental and district authorities under the 2020 Act

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 2(a), 2(c), and 9

Whether the District Commissioner had jurisdiction 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 as ultra vires the 2020 Act.

Whether setting aside the transfer order would prevent the competent authorities from passing a fresh transfer order or initiating disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court applied Section 2(a) of the 2020 Act, which defines the “Appointing Authority” as the authority prescribed 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 concerning academic atmosphere, peace and tranquillity, or the safety and security of a female teacher, only to refer a proposal for transfer 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 settled principle that where a statute vests a power in a particular authority, that power 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 held that Section 9 did not confer an independent power upon the District Commissioner to transfer a teacher.

The District Commissioner could only identify the exigency, comply with the prescribed formalities, and refer a transfer proposal to the competent authority

Thereafter, the competent authority was required to consider the proposal and recommend it to the petitioner’s appointing authority, which alone possessed the power to 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 impugned order was held to be without jurisdiction and beyond the statutory power conferred by the 2020 Act

Accordingly, the transfer order dated 20 June 2024, insofar as it concerned the petitioner, was set aside as ultra vires and unsustainable

The Court clarified that the authorities remained free to issue a fresh transfer order through the legally competent process and could also initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings, including suspension if warranted, in accordance with law

The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions