A petitioner lacks locus standi to challenge a transfer order if no legal right is infringed, necessitating a direct personal grievance for maintaining a writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The writ petitioner is an approved Assistant Headmaster of the Shree Guru Vidyamandir High School, which is a Higher Secondary school. The present challenge has been thrown against the respondent no.12 who was recommended by the School Service Commission (SSC) to the Shree Guru Vidyamandir as Assistant Teacher through General Transfer from Aminpur High School on July 15, 2016.

2. The respondent no. 12 participated in the SLST 2017 Recruitment of Head Masters and became selected. As per recommendation of the School Service Commission (SSC), the respondent no. 12 was appointed as Head Mistress at the Birpara Girls’ High School, also a Higher Secondary school.

3. On December 19, 2019, within a month from such appointment, the respondent no. 12 took lien-leave from Shree Guru Vidyamandir for a period of one year and a release order was accordingly issued.

4. The respondent no. 12 thereby joined the Birpara Girls High School as Head Mistress with effect from December 10, 2019.

5. The lien-leave was further extended subsequently.

6. Thereafter, the respondent no. 12 made an application for transfer on special ground and was transferred to the Amiyo Pal Chowdhury Smriti Vidyamandir but did not join there.

7. On October 29, 2021, respondent no. 12 was recommended by the SSC as Head Mistress at the Shree Guru Vidyamandir under General Transfer on special ground.

8. Challenging such transfer order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is an Assistant Head Master at the Shree Guru Vidyamandir High School.

9. The petitioner alleges palpable contravention of the West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2015 Rules”) which, according to the petitioner, was in force during the entire relevant period.

10. In terms of Rule 3(1)thereof, an incumbent shall be eligible for General Transfer only if he/she is confirmed in service and has completed five years of satisfactory service in that particular school and in particular post from which he/she seeks General Transfer. Rule 3(3) provides that where an incumbent refuses to join his/her preferred School after due recommendation by the Commission, such incumbent shall not be allowed to submit transfer application for three subsequent terms of General Transfer.

11. In the present case, it is argued that the respondent no. 12 contravened such provision by seeking transfer within five years of service in the same post. She refused to join in the Amio Pal Chowdhury School, for which she also comes within the purview of Rule 3(3).

12. Rule 4 of the 2015 Rules speaks about General Transfer on Special Grounds. The respondent no. 12, it is argued, sought transfer on the ground that her father is suffering from fourth stage of Cancer and that she is unmarried and is required to look after her father. However, Rule 4(1)(a) provides that any teacher or non-teaching staff or his/her son or daughter or spouse suffering from malignant diseases, including heart disease, renal failure, Thalassemia, replacement of organ, serious gynaecological disorder or physical disablement of 40% or more or to assist in proper treatment of self or son/daughter or spouse is a valid special ground for such transfer. However, there is nothing in the said provision which remotely comes near the ground on which the respondent no. 12 was granted transfer. The transfer not being sought by the respondent no. 12 on her own ground or the ground of her son/daughter or spouse was not within the contemplation of the 2015 Rules.

13. The 2021 Scheme, which came into force on September 8, 2021, substituted Rule 4. Although Clause (a) remained substantially the same referring only to son/daughter/spouse, Clause (e) introduced “any other reasons” as a special ground for transfer.

14. However, it is argued that the said provision has to be seen in the context of ejusdem generis and can