Bobita Engtipi vs North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council And 5 Ors

Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. RM Das, learned counsel for the authorities under the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council and Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.6.

The petitioner is a Subject teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Haflong. On superannuation of the earlier Principal, namely Smti Malabika Longmailai on 28.02.2017, the next senior most Subject Teacher was allowed to be the in-charge Principal. However, the next senior most Subject Teacher Sri L.D Deka due to his ill health had refused to the said benefit granted to him. There upon, the petitioner being the senior most Teacher was allowed to be the in-charge Principal. In the meantime, the respondent No.6 Sri Samir Mazumder was promoted as the Vice Principal of the school by the order dated 01.03.2020. Consequent thereof, the respondent No.6 Sri Samir Mazumder was made the in-charge Principal. The appointment of the respondent No.6 as the in-charge Principal was assailed by the present petitioner in WP(C) No.3099/2020, which would require a separate consideration on its own merit. The petitioner was aggrieved by the B.Ed degree and the Master degree of the aforesaid respondent No.6 Sri Samir Mazumder. In the circumstance, the petitioner lodged an ejahar before the Haflong Police Station against the respondent No.6, which resulted in the police station case being registered. In the aforesaid circumstance, by the impugned order dated 30.09.2020, the petitioner was transferred from Government Girls Higher Secondary, Haflong to Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Haflong. The order of transfer dated 30.09.2020 has been assailed in this writ petition.

Mr. RM Das, learned counsel for the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council by referring to the affidavit in opposition has taken a stand that as because of the complaint being lodged by the petitioner before the police station, the atmosphere in the school has been adversely affected and therefore, the petitioner has been transferred out of the school.

The said reason stated does not appear to be wholly convincing to result in the order to transfer an employee under the service law jurisprudence to another place of posting. If such reasons are allowed to be a reason for transfer, there is a definite possibility of arbitrariness being crept in the matter of transfer of employees. If the petitioner has filed any false complaint, it is for the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner under the law. If the filing of the complaint according to the respondents would be a misconduct, again the remedy would be different. But under both circumstances, it cannot be that the petitioner is transferred to another place of posting.

Accordingly, the order of transfer dated 30.09.2020 stands interfered and set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner under the law, if so advised.

We have taken note of that the order of transfer is written to be 23.09.2020 at one place and 30.09.2020 at another place. For the purpose of convenience, we accept the date to be 30.09.2020 and pass our order as indicated above. All consequential order pursuant to the order dated 30.09.2020 shall also stand set aside.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.