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

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Uttar Hojai Nimna Buniadi School, challenged an order dated 22 June 2024 by which the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferred him to Changmaji Abdul Kadir Laskar LP School.

He contended that the District Commissioner lacked statutory 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 maintained that the power to transfer and post teachers was vested in the departmental and district-level authorities under the 2020 Act.

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 impugned transfer order dated 22 June 2024 was liable to be set aside for being issued without jurisdiction?

Whether setting aside the transfer order prevented the respondent 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 define the “Appointing Authority,” “Category or Cadre,” and “Competent Authority.”

Section 9 authorises the Deputy 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 must thereafter consider it and recommend the matter to the concerned appointing authority for issuance of the transfer order.

The Court further applied the settled principle that where a statutory power is vested in a particular authority, it must be exercised only by that authority and in the manner prescribed by law, unless expressly delegated, 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.

Under Section 9, the District Commissioner could, in the prescribed circumstances, submit or refer a proposal for transfer to the competent authority, but could not himself issue the transfer order.

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

Since the impugned order was directly issued by the District Commissioner and no statutory provision conferred such power upon him, the order was ultra vires and ex facie without jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that this interference did 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.