Single-subject teacher transfers cannot be rejected for want of a willing replacement teacher.

The petitioner, a single-subject teacher, sought transfer under the West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Ground and Reallocation) Rules, 2015, as amended by the memo dated 3 January 2022.

As the “Utsashree” portal was non-operational, the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in WPA 375 of 2026. By order dated 17 March 2026, the Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, to consider the petitioner’s offline transfer application and communicate the decision to him

The District Inspector thereafter approached nearby schools to arrange, on a temporary basis, an assistant teacher of the relevant subject until a permanent teacher joined. Since no nearby school consented to the proposed temporary arrangement, the petitioner’s transfer application was rejected by order dated 4 June 2026

The petitioner challenged that rejection in the present writ petition, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Rupak Dhua v. The State of West Bengal, FMA 995 of 2025, decided on 31 July 2025

Whether the petitioner’s transfer application could be rejected solely because no nearby school had agreed to provide a temporary teacher for the petitioner’s existing post

Whether the amended transfer procedure dated 3 January 2022 required the District Inspector of Schools to find a “willing” teacher before processing or granting the transfer of a single-subject teacher

The Court applied the West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Ground and Reallocation) Rules, 2015, as amended by the memo dated 3 January 2022.

Under the amendment, where a single-subject teacher applies for transfer, the School Managing Committee must not reject the application; the District Inspector of Schools must immediately consult the Commissioner of School Education, take urgent and time-bound steps to search for a teacher of the same subject from nearby schools, and make a local temporary arrangement until a permanent teacher joins. The provision does not impose a requirement that a “willing” teacher must first be found before the applicant’s transfer can be considered

The Court relied on Rupak Dhua v. The State of West Bengal, FMA 995 of 2025, where the Division Bench held that the applicant’s transfer claim could not be kept in abeyance until a willing teacher was found and directed the authorities to act in strict conformity with the 3 January 2022 notification

The District Inspector had treated the absence of consent from nearby schools as a ground for rejecting the petitioner’s application

However, the governing amendment imposed an obligation on the authorities to make urgent efforts to arrange a substitute teacher; it did not make the success of that effort, or the willingness of another teacher, a precondition to the petitioner’s transfer

Since the Division Bench in Rupak Dhua had already interpreted the same notification and expressly held that a transfer claim could not be withheld until a willing teacher was found, the District Inspector’s rejection was contrary to the binding legal position

The impugned order was therefore unsustainable.

The matter was remanded to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, with directions to act strictly in accordance with the 3 January 2022 notification and the principles laid down in Rupak Dhua, and to take expeditious steps for filling the resultant vacancy after the petitioner’s transfer. The entire exercise was directed to be completed preferably within three months from communication of the judgment

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of