District Commissioners cannot directly transfer teachers; statutory authority rests with the appointing authority.

The petitioner, a teacher serving at Thikadar Basti B.C. ME School, challenged the order dated 19 July 2024 issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, transferring him to Nehru Azad A.D. L.P. School, Jugijan, Hojai.

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 argued that the power to transfer and post teachers was vested in the departmental and district authorities under the 2020 Act.

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

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 19 July 2024, issued by the District Commissioner, Hojai, was ultra vires and liable to be set aside.

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 permits the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner, in specified exigencies involving academic atmosphere, peace and tranquillity, or the safety and security of a female teacher, to refer a transfer proposal to the competent authority; it does not authorise the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner to issue the transfer order directly.

The transfer order must ultimately be issued by the concerned appointing authority, following consideration and recommendation by the competent authority.

The Court also applied the settled principle that where a statute vests power in a particular authority, that power can 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 petitioner’s appointing authority was not the District Commissioner.

Under Section 9, the District Commissioner could only refer a transfer proposal to the competent authority after observing the prescribed formalities and being satisfied that transfer was necessary on one of the statutory grounds.

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

Since the District Commissioner directly issued the impugned order without acting through this statutory process, the order was beyond the authority conferred by the 2020 Act and was therefore ultra vires.

The transfer order dated 19 July 2024 was set aside insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

However, the Court clarified that its decision 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.