Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prapti Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
WPA 1483 of 2024
Prapti Chakraborty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Biswarup Biswas
: Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya
: Ms. Priyanka Jana
For the WBCSSC : Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay
Heard on : 02.04.2026
Judgment on : 21.04.2026
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
1. An order of the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal
dated October 05, 2023 is under challenge in the instant writ
petition. In the same, pursuant to the direction of the Division
Bench of this Court dated August 10, 2023, the said respondent
has been considering the writ petitioner‟s prayer to seek transfer
and rejects the same.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition is with regard to the alleged
unauthorized and illegal refusal by the respondent authorities of
the prayer of the petitioner for transfer. The said respondent has
turned down the petitioner‟s prayer for transfer on the grounds
Page 2 of 14
that, she being a single teacher in the subject Sanskrit in the
school, her transfer would not be feasible for benefit of the
students. Also, that in accordance with the unamended West
Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on
Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015 [vide Notification
No. 159-SE/S/1S-4/95(Part) dated February 27, 2015], the
petitioner would not be competent and eligible for such transfer.
The respondent has stated in the said impugned order while
rejecting the petitioner‟s prayer as above that Rule 6(5) of the
Notification No. 159-SE/S/1S-4/95(Part) dated February 27,
2015, which is applicable in case of the writ petitioner, bears no
express provision for transfer of a single subject teacher.
3. The writ petitioner is an approved Assistant Teacher in
Honours/Post-graduate category in the subject Sanskrit in the
respondent school. She was appointed therein with effect from
July 14, 2011.
4. The petitioner‟s first application through Utsashree transfer portal
was made on August 12, 2021. The same was forwarded by the
Head of the Institution to the respondent No. 4/District Inspector
of Schools on August 31, 2021 with the comment “As per M.C.
meeting vide Memo No. 02/2021 dated 31/08/2021 all the present
members have been decided that considering the application of the
above-mentioned teacher, the school managing committee have no
objection to release”. However, the prayer of the petitioner so
forwarded by the Head of the institution was rejected by the
respondent/D.I. on September 01, 2021 for the reason “due to
single teacher”.
5. On September 24, 2021, the petitioner made her second
application similarly in the Utsashree transfer portal, when her
Page 3 of 14
prayer was refused by the Head of the Institution on September
29, 2021 for the reason “out of 10 per cent”.
6. The third and last application in the similar manner was filed by
the petitioner in the portal on February 10, 2022, which was again
rejected by the Head of the Institution on March 01, 2022 for the
reason shown “out of 10 per cent”.
7. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench order of
this Court in Prapti Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal in 2023
SCC OnLine Cal 2403. It is submitted that, while remanding back
the petitioner‟s grievance and prayer before the
respondent/Commissioner of School Education, the Hon‟ble
Division Bench has held unequivocally that rights the petitioner do
exist for being transferred in terms of the Rules. During argument,
Mr. Biswarup Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioner has
relied on the following portion of the said judgment:-
“5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision
of the coordinate bench presided over by one of us (Soumen Sen,
J.) in FMA 1082 of 2019 (Amar Jana v. West Bengal Central School
Service Commission, Secretary) decided on 22nd December, 2020
and submits that the application for transfer has to be considered
on the basis of relevant circular prevalent at the relevant point of
time and not in terms of any subsequent circular unless such
circular is made specifically retrospective. In any event, 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.
6. Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, learned AGP appearing for the
State and Mr. Sourav Mitra, learned advocate representing the
Central School Service Commission submit that the pupil-teacher
ratio should be the paramount consideration in deciding transfer
and in view of Notification dated 29th September, 2022 the
teacher has no vested right to claim transfer.
Page 4 of 14
7. We are not unmindful of the fact 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. We cannot also lost sight of the fact that there is a need for
rationalization of policy of transfers of the teachers.
8. The service conditions gives right to claim transfer on
fulfillment 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 on the ground of “out of
10%” and no sufficient material is produced before us to justify
the said stand. The order of rejection has to be considered on the
basis of the reasons mentioned and not on any other extraneous
consideration. The argument made that pupil-teacher ratio was a
relevant factor is not borne out from the impugned order of the
Head of the Institution. There cannot be any doubt that in an
appropriate situation interest of the student could be the over-
riding consideration. However, at the same time if a teacher
fulfills the eligibility criteria for transfer under the relevant
existing rules there are procedures prescribed to fill up the
resultant vacancy. In a given situation it is possible that although
a teacher is eligible for transfer an immediate replacement may
not be possible and the recruitment process for the said post
would take such time the transfer may be given effect to from a
future date. However, once a teacher fulfills the eligibility criteria,
the authority must take steps to fill up the resultant vacancy as
per the norms existing at the relevant point of time by way of
local arrangement or by recruiting a permanent teacher for the
said post within a reasonable time.”
8. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that,
while delivering the said impugned order dated October 05, 2023,
the respondent/Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal
has given a complete go by to the findings of the Hon‟ble Division
Bench of the Court in the judgment as above. Therefore, the
impugned order stands in violation of the findings of the Hon‟ble
Division Bench. Hence, it would not be maintainable in view
thereof.
Page 5 of 14
9. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioner has further
submitted that, the ground taken by the respondent/
Commissioner of School Education in the impugned order of the
writ petitioner being the single subject teacher in the school, is
only untrue and unsubstantiated. On the contrary, according to
him, one para teacher is available for the same subject. Mr. Biswas
has categorically submitted that, such fact has been duly
elaborated by the petitioner on affidavit in the writ petition and not
denied by the respondent authority. He has further indicated that,
it is now the settled law that, in the context of transfer for
compelling reasons, a para teacher would be considered on similar
footing as a subject teacher. Mr. Biswas has further submitted
that, the amended West Bengal School Service Commission
(General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation)
Rules, 2015 [vide the notification No. 707/SE/S/1 S-04/95(Pt)
dated September 8, 2021] has duly crystallized the right of the
petitioner for being transferred on cogent and reasonable grounds.
He submits that, it is only the statutory provision that, in such a
case, the respondent is duty-bound to make local arrangements on
temporary basis till the time another permanent teacher can be
appointed in the said post which fell vacant due to such transfer.
10. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioner has further
submitted by mentioning Rule 6 of the amended Rule [vide the
notification No. 707/SE/S/1 S-04/95(Pt) dated September 8,
2021] as above, that as per the provision thereof, the school is
duty-bound to approve the transfer application of teacher and in
case the approved teacher in a subject falls at zero due to such
transfer, the statutory measures have been made to be undertaken
in such situation. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there
would not be any scope for either the school authority or the
District Inspector of Schools to turn down the petitioner‟s prayer
for transfer under any pretext whatsoever. On the contrary they
Page 6 of 14
have statutory duty to make local arrangement upon transfer,
when there remains no other subject teacher, after giving effect to
his/her application for transfer.
11. As such, it is submitted that, the exercise to reject the petitioner‟s
prayer firstly by the respondent/D.I., also by the Head of the
Institution and finally by the Commissioner of School Education,
West Bengal, vide the impugned order passed by him is the result
of illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized exercise of power. By
referring to a Supreme Court judgment in Pancham Chand and
Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in 2008
7 SCC 117, wherein the Court has relied on the earlier case in
Mohinder Singh Gill And Another Vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (1978 1 SCC 405), it has been
submitted that, the respondent authority is not permitted to shift
stand and strengthen its case with time by incorporating ever new
grounds in support of its decision. A judgment of this Court in
Namita Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal reported in [2003]
Volume 2 Calcutta Law Times, Page No. 63 is referred to in support
of his contention that, the principles of res judicata is also
applicable in a proceeding before the administrative authority as
they are bound on public policy of justice.
12. To buttress his argument that in an appropriate case, a para
teacher can be treated similar as a permanent and approved
subject teacher for the limited purpose, Mr. Biswas has referred to
a judgment of this Court in WPA 20382 of 2022 [Chandrima
Dasgupta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.] dated June 19,
2024. The Court has held and directed therein that, while making
local arrangement, presence of para teacher in the subject of the
petitioner (therein), should be taken into consideration by the
concerned respondent. By specifically pointing out to the different
stands undertaken by the respondent authority at different points
Page 7 of 14
of time while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, Mr. Biswas
refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in Central Warehousing
Corporation Vs. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited
(APSEZL) and Others reported in 2022 15 SCC 110. In the same,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by referring to its earlier decision in
Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited Vs. State of H.P. reported
in 2016 1 SCC 560 has held that, the State Government cannot
speak in two voices.
13. For all the reasons as argued and discussed above, Mr. Biswas
insists that, the present writ petition may be allowed with
appropriate directions.
14. In this case to the contentions and prayer of the petitioner, there is
strong objection raised on behalf of the respondent/State. In their
affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent has taken out a further
ground that, the application for general transfer of the petitioner
would not be maintainable as the same is not commensurate with
the provision of the Rules for maintaining “Pupil-teacher ratio
(PTR)”. The State has submitted that, in case, the petitioner‟s
application for transfer is accepted, the pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) of
the school would fall deficient as to the norms laid down in the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It
is submitted that it is more so, since the petitioner‟s application is
not on medical grounds.
15. This is not the first time that the petitioner has approached this
Court, to seek due implementation of her right. 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 that in view of the Right of Children to Free and
Page 8 of 14
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 it is the obligation of the State to
implement the provisions of the said Act. That, there is a need for
rationalization of policy of transfers of the teachers. Further
finding of the Division Bench in respect of the prayer for transfer of
the present petitioner is that the service conditions gives right to
claim transfer on fulfillment 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 on the
ground of “out of 10%” and no sufficient material is produced
before us to justify the said stand. The order of rejection has to be
considered on the basis of the reasons mentioned and not on any
other extraneous consideration. The argument made that pupil-
teacher ratio was a relevant factor is not borne out from the
impugned order of the Head of the Institution. There cannot be
any doubt that in an appropriate situation interest of the student
could be the over-riding consideration. However, at the same time
if a teacher fulfills the eligibility criteria for transfer under the
relevant existing rules there are procedures prescribed to fill up
the resultant vacancy. In a given situation it is possible that
although a teacher is eligible for transfer an immediate
replacement may not be possible and the recruitment process for
the said post would take such time the transfer may be given effect
to from a future date. However, once a teacher fulfills the eligibility
criteria, the authority must take steps to fill up the resultant
vacancy as per the norms existing at the relevant point of time by
way of local arrangement or by recruiting a permanent teacher for
the said post within a reasonable time.
16. Therefore, existence of the right of the petitioner has already been
narrated by the Division Bench, which is binding on this Court
too. The respondent authority could have hardly ignored the
finding of the Hon‟ble Division Bench in this regard, though the
Page 9 of 14
ground reality is that the same has largely ignored the Court‟s
findings as above and imposed fresh reasons of its own to reject
the petitioner‟s prayer, instead of following the Court‟s verdict. An
administrative authority, in its decision is duty bound to follow the
verdict of the Court on the issue, or otherwise its order
tantamount to be beyond scope of the law settled on the subject.
Hence, the impugned order being not in conformity with the
directions and findings of the Division Bench, amounts to be not
maintainable.
17. This Court now proceeds to examine the issue from the standpoint
of a comparative analysis of the Notification No. 159-SE/S/1S-
4/95(Part) dated February 27, 2015 and the subsequent amended
Notification No. 707/SE/S/1 S-04/95(Pt) dated September 8,
2021. The unamended Rules of 2015 did not expressly
contemplate a situation where transfer of a single subject teacher
would result in temporary absence of a teacher in that subject.
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
amended provisions clearly recognize that 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. Therefore, the
2021 amendment is not merely procedural but substantive in
nature, as it seeks to balance administrative exigencies with the
service rights of teachers.
18. The effect of the amended Rules is to dilute the rigidity that was
previously being applied by the authorities under the 2015
framework. The introduction of provisions mandating local
arrangements, even where a post temporarily falls vacant, reflects
Page 10 of 14
a conscious policy decision of the State to ensure that legitimate
transfer claims are not frustrated on hyper-technical grounds.
Thus, when the petitioner‟s application was under consideration,
the authority was duty-bound to apply the amended Rules of
2021, which were in force at the relevant point of time. Failure to
do so renders the decision-making process fundamentally flawed
and legally unsustainable. Be it mentioned that the amended
Rules had come into force within one month of the date of first
application of the writ petitioner.
19. In this context, the contention of the respondent that the
petitioner‟s transfer is impermissible due to her being a single
subject teacher loses its force in view of the amended statutory
framework. The Rules of 2021 clearly envisage such contingencies
and obligate the authorities to adopt alternative arrangements
rather than reject the application outright. Therefore, the reliance
placed by the respondent on the earlier Notification of 2015,
ignoring the subsequent amendment, is misconceived and
contrary to settled principles of administrative law. It is also
arbitrary, in so far as at the later stage the respondent has
consciously changed its stand and shifted the ground of rejection
from „a single teacher‟ ground to others like „out of 10 percent‟ and
„pupil-teacher ratio‟. The inconsistency in the stand taken by the
respondent at different stages further weakens its case. In Central
Warehousing Corporation (supra), referring to Lloyd Electric
(supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the State cannot
“speak in two voices”. In the present case, the respondent initially
rejected the application on the ground of “single teacher”, then on
“out of 10%”, and subsequently attempted to rely on PTR
considerations. Such shifting stands clearly demonstrate lack of
bona fides and arbitrariness in the decision-making process.
Page 11 of 14
20. Further, this Court finds substance in the submission of the
petitioner regarding the presence of a para teacher in the
concerned subject. The order of this Court dated June 19, 2024
passed in WPA 20382 of 2022, recognizes that a para teacher can
serve as a suitable stop-gap arrangement for the purpose of
maintaining continuity in teaching. The said decision reinforces
the principle that administrative flexibility must be exercised to
ensure that students do not suffer, while at the same time not
depriving a teacher of her legitimate service benefits. The presence
of a para teacher, therefore, sufficiently addresses the concern of
disruption in teaching and negates the primary ground on which
the petitioner‟s application was rejected.
21. This Court is of the view that the concept of a “stop-gap
arrangement” is intrinsic to the amended transfer regime. The
statutory scheme does not mandate immediate availability of a
permanent replacement as a pre-condition for transfer. Instead, it
contemplates interim measures, including engagement of para
teachers or other temporary arrangements, until regular
appointment is made. Hence, the existence of a para teacher in the
petitioner‟s school ought to have been considered as a relevant and
sufficient factor to facilitate, rather than obstruct, her transfer.
22. The grounds taken by the respondent in the impugned order as
well as in the affidavit-in-opposition are also liable to be tested in
light of settled judicial principles. In Pancham Chand (supra),
relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Mohinder Singh Gill
(supra), it has been unequivocally held that the validity of an
administrative order must be judged on the reasons stated therein
and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons through affidavits.
Applying the said principle, the additional grounds sought to be
introduced by the respondent, particularly relating to pupil-
teacher ratio (PTR), cannot be taken into consideration since the
Page 12 of 14
same did not form part of the original impugned order. The
attempt of the respondent to justify its decision by introducing
new grounds at a later stage is impermissible in law. The
impugned order must stand or fall on its own reasoning. The
subsequent reliance on PTR norms, therefore, appears to be an
afterthought and cannot cure the inherent defects in the decision-
making process.
23. Moreover, the principle laid down in Namita Chowdhury (supra)
that administrative authorities are bound by principles akin to res
judicata also applies in the present case. The Division Bench has
already adjudicated upon the petitioner‟s entitlement and has laid
down binding directions regarding consideration of her transfer
application. The respondent authority was not at liberty to re-open
the issue on grounds which either stood rejected earlier or were
not raised at the appropriate stage. Such conduct undermines
judicial discipline and the finality attached to judicial
determinations.
24. This Court finds that the respondent authority has failed to adhere
to the principles of consistency, transparency and fairness which
are fundamental to administrative action. The impugned order
reflects a mechanical and predetermined approach, rather than a
reasoned consideration of the petitioner‟s case in light of the
applicable statutory framework and binding judicial
pronouncements. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it
is evident that the reasons assigned in the impugned order are not
only contrary to the amended Rules of 2021 but also violative of
settled principles of administrative law. The existence of a para
teacher, the statutory mandate for local arrangements, and the
binding nature of the Division Bench judgment collectively render
the respondent‟s decision unsustainable.
Page 13 of 14
25. The present case engages principles of fairness in decision-
making, non-arbitrariness, consistency of State action and fidelity
to binding precedent. 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. Equally relevant
is the principle that statutory discretion must be exercised to
advance the object of the law and not to defeat it. The amended
Rules of 2021, being beneficial in nature, are required to receive a
purposive construction so as to effectuate the right of eligible
teachers to seek transfer, subject to manageable administrative
safeguards. The prohibition against supplementing reasons, the
bar on shifting stands, and the binding nature of prior judicial
determinations together form part of a coherent doctrinal
framework that restrains arbitrary State action. Tested on these
principles, the impugned decision fails to meet the minimum
standards of legality, rationality and procedural propriety, thereby
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
26. For all the discussions as made above, this writ petition should
succeed and the impugned order of the respondent/Commissioner
of School Education dated October 5, 2023, is liable to be set aside
and quashed.
27. Hence the instant writ petition WPA 1483 of 2024 is allowed with
the directions as follows:
a. The impugned order of the respondent/
Commissioner of School Education dated October 5,
2023, is set aside and quashed;
Page 14 of 14
b. The petitioner‟s application for transfer shall
suitably be allowed by the respondent No.5 and
6/the West Bengal Central School Service
Commission by duly obtaining vacancy position
from the respondent No. 4/District Inspector of
Schools (Secondary Education) Uttar Dinajpur,
maximum within a period of 6 weeks, from the date
of communication of this judgment;
c. Adequate and appropriate measure shall be
undertaken by the concerned respondent authority
to create interim, stop gap arrangement as
envisaged in the Rules.
28. The instant writ petition is allowed and disposed of along with the
application pending if any.
29. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)