Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samir Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 June, 2025
65
ss 19.06.2025
WPA 10874 of 2022
Samir Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ujjal Ray
Mr. Atreya Chakraborty
... ... for the petitioner
Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay
Ms. Lipika Chatterjee
... ... for the State
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
Ms. Supriya Dubey
... ... for the WBCSSC
1.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his
request for transfer on the ground that the petitioner
is a single teacher in the concerned subject in the
relevant school.
2.The petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher of
Mathematics in Ratote Junior High School on
August 31, 2010. While in service in the school, the
petitioner made an application for transfer on
August 13, 2021. The petitioner’s application for
transfer was forwarded by the school authorities to
the District Inspector of Schools, who in turn
forwarded the same to the West Bengal Central
School Service Commission (hereinafter referred to
as “WBCSSC”). The WBCSSC rejected the
petitioner’s request for transfer on the ground that
there was a single teacher in the concerned subject
2
in the school wherefrom the petitioner sought to be
transferred.
3.Being aggrieved by the refusal to accede to the
petitioner’s request for transfer from the said school,
the petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the instant writ petition.
4.Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that as the petitioner had made the
application for transfer on August 13, 2021, the
petitioner’s application could not have been turned
down on the ground of there being a single teacher
in the relevant subject in the school wherein the
petitioner was rendering his services.
5.Mr. Ray submits that the amendment effected to the
West Bengal School Service Commission (General
Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and
Reallocation) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter 2015 Rules)
could not apply to the petitioner inasmuch as the
same were effected on September 8, 2021 and the
petitioner had applied on August 13, 2021.
6.Mr. Ray also places reliance on a Single Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Satyajit Saha
Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 16082
of 2021) decided on December 23, 2021 wherein it
was held that the Memorandum dated September
22, 2021 whereby the amendment was effected to
3
the aforesaid Rules of 2015 would not have
retrospective effect.
7.Mr. Ray places further reliance on the following
judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court :
a) Prapti Chakraborty Vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors. (MAT 205 of 2023), reported
at 2023 SCC Online Cal 2403
b) Pragya Sarki Vs. The State of West
Bengal & Ors. (MAT 4 of 2023)
8. Mr. Ray submits that the aforesaid two judgments of
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court further
support his clients’ case. He submits that while in
the case of Prapti Chakraborty (supra) the Hon’ble
Division Bench had held that an application for
transfer made by a teacher could not be declined on
the ground that the same fell foul of the rule of “out
of 10 per cent”, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the
case of Pragya Sarki (supra) has held that the
rule/circular/amendment which created an embargo
on the transfer of a school teacher of a subject in the
relevant school could not be applied retrospectively.
9.Dr. Patra, learned advocate appearing for the WBCSSC
produces before this Court “Guidelines to applicant
of Secondary, H.S. School seeking transfer” and
submits that the petitioner has admittedly made his
application for transfer through the portal meant
therefor. He further submits that such portal was
4
not in existence at the time when the 2015 Rules
came into existence.
10.Dr. Patra further submits that the aforesaid Guidelines
were framed to regulate transfers that were
requested upon the portal coming into existence.
Therefore, the petitioner who had applied through
the portal would be bound to follow those
Guidelines. Dr. Patra relies on Clause 7(iv) of the
said Guidelines.
11.Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the
material on record, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner’s application for transfer could not have
been turned down by the WBCSSC on the ground of
there being a single teacher in the concerned
subject. There are more than one reasons for holding
that the decision taken by the WBCSSC to decline
the petitioner’s request for transfer is not
sustainable.
12.Firstly, at the time when the petitioner applied for
transfer, there was no rule that put an embargo on a
single teacher of a subject being transferred from
one school to the other. It is trite law that an
application for transfer of a candidate is to be
considered in the light of the Rules obtaining at the
time when such application is made. The judgment
cited by Mr. Ray in the case of Satyajit Saha (supra)
5
and Pragya Sarki (supra) clearly support the
aforesaid view.
13.Secondly, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Piyali Goswami Vs. State of West
Bengal and others (MAT 64 of 2025) while
considering the case of transfer upon the Rules
being amended (which brought in the embargo on
transfer of single teacher and which was not there at
the time when the petitioner had made the
application) has held as follows :
“8. In a co-ordinate Bench decision in
MAT 1218 of 2024 the Hon’ble Division
bench has observed that the said
notification passed over a statutory duty
on the D.I. of Schools of the district
concerned to make an alternative
arrangement within a time bound manner.
The said notification does not
contemplate that unless a willing teacher
volunteers to join the school even on a
temporary basis, the application for
transfer of an eligible teacher would not
be allowed at all and is dependent upon
the willingness of the teacher.
9. In the instant case, more than four
years have passed since the application
has been made. However, the same time,
we cannot ignore the welfare of the
students who suffered in the event the
teacher is transferred without post being
filled up even on a temporary basis with a
fresh drive for recruitment if necessary for
the said post.”
14.Thirdly, reliance placed on Clause 7(iv) of the said
Guidelines in the instant case does not come to the
aid of the WBCSSC. Clause 7(iv) provides as follows :
“(iv) You must realize that your noble
service to the institution is key factor for
growth of students. As such to save the
6interest of the institution, the authority
will see your requirement as subject
teacher in respect of preferred school,
permissible limit of release of teacher for
the sake of institution etc. However, as
already informed, keeping the nature of
the problem a teacher facing as mentioned
in 7(III) above i.e. grounds 4(a) to (d)
above, such exercise may be dispensed
with while considering such applications.”
15.From the document annexed at page 25 of the writ
petition it is clear that the school has stated that it
has no objection if the petitioner is transferred as
requested by the petitioner. In the peculiar facts of
this case, the requirement of Clause 7(iv) of the
Guidelines have been appropriately met inasmuch
as the school wherefrom the petitioner has sought
for being transferred, has not registered any
objection to the petitioner’s transfer.
16.In view of the aforesaid, the decision of the
Commission to not transfer the petitioner, is set
aside.
17.The matter is remitted to the WBCSSC and the
WBCSSC is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s
case for transfer within a period of four weeks from
the date of communication of this order and to pass
necessary orders in respect of the petitioner’s
transfer, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for
transfer.
18.Since more than four years have passed since the date
of the petitioner making the application for transfer
7
and since it has been submitted by the petitioner
that the vacancies in the school that had been
indicated by the petitioner in the petitioner’s
preference in the application for transfer may not be
existence at present, the WBCSSC shall, if it finds
that the petitioner is eligible for transfer, give an
opportunity to the petitioner to change the names of
the schools indicated in the application for transfer.
19.It is clarified that if it is found that vacancy is still
existent in the school indicated by the petitioner in
the application for transfer then in that case the
aforesaid exercise will not be undertaken by the
WBCSSC.
20.With the aforesaid observation, WPA 10874 of 2022 is
disposed of.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)