Rules vs rigidity: Calcutta High Court scraps ‘flawed’ order denying transfer to lone subject teacher

The order added that the amended provisions clearly recognise that the transfer of a teacher cannot be indefinitely stalled merely on the ground of temporary inconvenience and expressly provide for making local arrangements in the event of a resultant vacancy.

It continued, “The doctrine that an administrative authority must act within the four corners of the statute, while also adhering to reasonableness as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution, stands clearly attracted herein.”

Background

The petitioner, an approved assistant teacher of Sanskrit since 2011, had filed three separate transfer applications through the Utsashree portal between 2021 and 2022, the Calcutta High Court was informed.

Her requests were repeatedly turned down by various authorities, firstly by the district inspector for being a “single teacher” and secondly by the head of the institution.

Despite a previous division bench ruling in her favour, which held that her transfer rights were governed by existing rules, the commissioner of school education issued a fresh rejection on October 5, 2023. This rejection claimed that transferring a single subject teacher was not feasible for students and lacked express provisions.

Court’s findings

• This is not the first time that the petitioner has approached this court in this matter.
• The finding of the division bench in her case is pertinent to note that the record would reveal that the writ petitioner was entitled to the benefit of transfer, having regard to the rules existing and applicable to her at the time of consideration of her application.
• The division bench found that in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, it is the obligation of the state to implement the provisions of the said Act.
• There is a need for rationalisation of the policy of transfers of teachers, the Calcutta High Court held.
• Further finding of the division bench in respect of the prayer for transfer of the present petitioner is that the service conditions give the right to claim transfer on fulfilment of certain conditions.
• An application for transfer has to be considered on the basis of existing and/or prevailing rules.
• We do not find any material to reject the said application of the petitioner by the Head of Institution, and no sufficient material has been produced before us to justify the said stand.

‘2021 amendment is not merely procedural’

• The argument that the pupil-teacher ratio was a relevant factor while denying the transfer is not borne out by the impugned order of the institution’s head, the Calcutta High Court noted.
• There cannot be any doubt that in an appropriate situation, the student’s interest could be the overriding consideration.
• But if a teacher fulfils the eligibility criteria for transfer under the relevant existing rules, there are procedures prescribed to fill up the resultant vacancy.
• The unamended Rules of 2015 did not expressly contemplate a situation where the transfer of a single subject teacher would result in the temporary absence of a teacher in that subject, the Calcutta High Court pointed out.
• This legislative silence appears to have been relied upon by the respondent authority to deny the petitioner’s claim.
• However, the amended notification of 2021 significantly alters the legal position by introducing a more pragmatic and structured mechanism.
• The 2021 amendment is not merely procedural but substantive in nature, as it seeks to balance administrative exigencies with the service rights of teachers.
• The effect of the amended rules is to dilute the rigidity under the 2015 framework, the Calcutta High Court said.
• The introduction of provisions mandating local arrangements, even where a post temporarily falls vacant, reflects a conscious policy decision of the state to ensure that legitimate transfer claims are not frustrated on hyper-technical grounds.