- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Chairman of primary school has no authority to issue transfer orders of teachers: Calcutta High Court
Chairman of primary school has no authority to issue transfer orders of teachers: Calcutta High Court
In an intra-court appeal, the Calcutta High Court held that the Chairman of a primary school did not have the authority or jurisdiction to issue impugned transfer order to the appellant Assistant Teacher of a Primary School. This decision came after a Single judge refused to interfere with the order of transfer issued against the appellant by the Chairman, North 24 Parganas District Primary School Council.
The facts of the case are that on 7th October, 2021 aggrieved by the transfer order the appellant had preferred a Writ Application before a Single Judge of Calcutta High Court. The single judge, while staying the transfer asked the DPSC North 24 Parganas to file report specifying the reasons of such transfer. After considering the said report the single judge set aside the order of transfer while relying on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
It was noted that the petitioner was the head teacher of a primary school consisting of 488 students, whereas the school to where the petitioner was transferred consisted of 125 students. According to the schedule in the 2009 Act, the number of teachers to be maintained for a school having above 150 students only is give plus one head teacher. There is no requirement of any head teacher in respect of a school which consists of less tan 150 students. Admittedly in the instant case, the petitioner has been transferred as head teacher of a school with less than 150 students. The same could not have been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009.
After this order passed by the Ld. Single Judge, the Chairman, North 24 Parganas District Primary School Council had issued an order of transfer of the appellant against which the appellant again filed a writ application which was dismissed by the Single Judge.
While concluding the court held:
The Chairman has invoked the authority of the Council by transferring the appellant from one school to another School, which is not permissible under law. Rule 4 specifically authorized the council to transfer an approved teacher and in the instant case admittedly the Chairman had issued the order of transfer and North 24 Parganas District Primary School Council never took any decision for transfer of the appellant.
In these circumstances, the impugned transfer order was set aside by the Court.