Calcutta High Court Stays Transfer of Teachers During the Pandemic

Must Read

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Follow us

In the Case of Supriya Mukhopadhyay v The State of West Bengal & Ors, the Petitioners filed a writ petition. It challenges the amendment to the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 2017. The amendment introduced a new section 10 (c) in the Act. It enables the State Government to transfer teachers. The petitioners were transferred under this provision.

Brief Facts 

The amendment aims to enable the proper Teacher-Student Ratio. It applies to 14,000 odd secondary schools. It allows the government to transfer surplus staff from one institution to another facing shortfall

The petitioners filed the petition within 48 hours of resumption of the court. They have challenged the transfer orders issued to them and others in the school. They have also challenged the release order dated 6th June 2020.

Arguments of the Petitioner

Mr Bari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited an unreported order dated February 3, 2020. A coordinate Bench in WP No.230(W) of 2020 passed this order. This order challenged the validity of the amended section 10 (c), applied in the case. He used this order to support the petitioner’s plea against the transfer. 

Further, Sec. 10 (c) was incorporated after the appointment of the petitioners. He argued that these provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. He added that transfer orders were issued to both Teaching and Non-Teaching staff.

The Advocate General questioned the said transfers considering all schools are closed. He questioned the transfer of both teaching and non-teaching staff from the same school. Further, he alleged that the transfers are tainted with malafide, considering the lockdown. 

He further submitted that that service employees can resist change in initial service rules. The employee can insist on freezing them at the juncture. He added that this was a well-settled in service jurisprudence. In light of these facts, he submitted that the transfers were vindictive. He argued that there could not be any administrative reason for transfers during the lockdown

Arguments of the Respondent

Advocate General Kishor Datta appeared for the Government. He submitted that the amendment intended to improve the academic standards of state-aided schools. Thus, the rationalizing of teachers and other staff is reasonable. 

Observations of the Court

After hearing both sides, the Court found some merit in the petitioner’s submissions. The Court said that there were some traces of malafide intention on prima facie hearing. The Court also questioned the amended provision and its application. 

It asked the respondents to file an affidavit in opposition.

The Court kept the case open for further hearing. But, it directed the government to stay the transfers until the final order. In the meantime, It directed the payment of salaries to the petitioners. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -