A teacher who is not affected by a transfer order has no locus standi to challenge it.

S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka, JJ.

1. This petition is directed against an order dated 7-5-1992 passed by the Director Secondary Education (Respondent No.2) whereby the respondent No.4 has ben disputed as Headmistress at Mahila Shilp Kala Bhawan, Muzaffarpur as eontaintd in Annexure-1 to the writ application.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The aforementioned school was nationalised under Sec.3 (1) of the Bihar non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and control Act, 1981. The post of the Headmistress of the said school fell vacant on 30th April, 1992. The petitioner became Incharge headmistress of the said school with effect from 1-5-1992. The respondent No.4 was the Headmistress of the one project Girls High School situated at Kanti.

3. By reason of the impugned order she has been transferred to the present school. The petitioner has filed a supplementary application wherein it has interalia been contended that the aforementioned impugned order was passed mala fide on the basis of political pairvies made by one Shri Rajani Ranjan Sahu member of Parliament and Dr. Raman prasad Yadav another member of Parliament.

4. According to the petitioner the said members of Parliament wrote a letters to the Minister of Education on 1st May, 1992 and 5th may, 1992 whereby he was requested to transfer the respondent No.4 to the School in question. The said letters are contained in Annexures-11 and 12 to the supplementary application.

5. From a perusal of Annexure-12, it appears that the Minister on the body of the said letter itself directed the Director Secondary education to depute the respondent No.4 in the said school and pursuant thereto a note was given by the Director on 6-5-1992 purported to be addressed of one Shri Sharma that the same be done on the said day.

6. The petitioner has further filed a supplementary affidavit alleging therein that the respondent No.4 is a resident of Muzaffarpur Town.

7. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated by the respondent No.4 that pursuant to the impugned order, she had been working as Headmistress of the aforementioned school from 11-5-1992. It has further been submitted that the respondent No.4 is in the cadre of Headmistress whereas the petitioner in the cadre of an Assistant Teacher and, thus he has no locus standi to maintain the writ application.

8. In a rejoinder filed to the said counter-affidavit, it has been contended by the petitioner that she is likely to be promoted to the post of headmistress against the 80% of the promotional quota and thus she has a right to continue as Headmistress of the School in question.

9. It has further been submitted that the order of transfer of respondent No.4 was against the Government Assurances given on the floor of the Assembly on 20-3-1991 to the effect that such teachers who are in the promotional list of 80% vacancies, they will continue as the Acting headmaster/headmistress of the School till they are granted regular promotion.

10. The petitioners in support of the aforementioned contention has annexed a copy of the order dated 11-6-1992 passed in C. W. J. C. No.4025 of 1992. The said order is contained in Annexure-13 to the supplementary application.

11. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a number of contentions in support of this application. The learned counsel firstly submitted that from a perusal of annexures-11 and 12 to the writ application as it is manifest that the respondent No.4 was transferred in the school by political paini, the same must be held to be bad in law.

12. It has further been submitted that in view of the fact that the minister of Education has given an assurance that to the effect that those persons who are on the promotional list would not be transferred to another school and would be allowed to continue as Acting headmistress of the School, the impugned order must be held to be ag