State Cannot Reject Teacher Transfer Requests Based on Single-Subject Teacher Grounds or Shifting Administrative Rationales

The petitioner, an approved Assistant Teacher of Sanskrit since 2011, challenged an order dated October 5, 2023, issued by the Commissioner of School Education, which rejected her application for transfer

Her previous applications through the ‘Utsashree’ portal were rejected on grounds of being a "single teacher" and violating the "10% rule"

Despite a prior Division Bench order in 2023 [2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2403] observing her entitlement to transfer and directing the authorities to make local arrangements to fill the resulting vacancy, the Commissioner again rejected her claim.

The rejection was based on the unamended 2015 Rules, citing the lack of express provision for transferring a single subject teacher and the potential impact on students

1. Whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the transfer prayer under the unamended 2015 Rules despite the 2021 amendments and the binding directions of the Division Bench

2. Whether the presence of a para-teacher in the same subject constitutes a valid basis for a "local arrangement" to facilitate the transfer of a single subject teacher

3. Whether the State can validly supplement its rejection order with new grounds, such as Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR), during writ proceedings

The court primarily applied the West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015, as amended by Notification No. 707/SE/S/1 S-04/95(Pt) dated September 8, 2021, which mandates making local arrangements to allow transfers even if a post temporarily falls vacant

It relied on the principle from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, which dictates that the validity of a statutory order must be judged only by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in an affidavit

The court also applied the doctrine of Consistent State Action from Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports, stating the State cannot "speak in two voices"

the principle of Res Judicata in administrative proceedings as held in Namita Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal

The court reasoned that the respondent authority ignored the substantive changes introduced by the 2021 Amendment, which diluted the rigidity of the 2015 Rules by requiring schools to make "local arrangements" rather than stalling transfers indefinitely

The court found the Commissioner’s reliance on the petitioner being a "single teacher" legally unsustainable because the 2021 Rules expressly provide for contingencies where a subject teacher count falls to zero

Furthermore, the court noted that a para-teacher was available in the school to serve as a "stop-gap arrangement," a factor supported by precedent (Chandrima Dasgupta v. State of WB) to ensure students' interests are protected while respecting the teacher’s rights

The court lambasted the respondent’s "shifting stands"—moving from "single teacher" to "10%" and finally to "PTR"—deeming it arbitrary and an attempt to circumvent the Division Bench’s specific findings regarding the petitioner’s eligibility

It held that the respondent failed to act with fairness and consistency, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the West Bengal Central School Service Commission to allow the petitioner's transfer within six weeks by obtaining vacancy positions from the District Inspector of Schools. It further ordered the authorities to create necessary interim or stop-gap arrangements as envisaged under the 2021 Rules