Form No. J(2)

Item No. DL / 06 Suvendu – A.R.(CT)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

W.P.A. NO 13585 OF 2025 HIMANI SHIT @ HIMANI SHIT BISWAS VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA For the Petitioner : Mr. Biswarup Biswas Mr. Gora Chand Samanta Ms. Nupur Chaudhuri For the State : Mr. Amitava Chaudhury Ms. Jayeta Mitra (Kaunda)

For the WBCSSC : Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy For the School Authority : Sk. Sahjahan Ali Heard on : 26.08.2025 Judgment on : 26.08.2025 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

1) In the writ petition memo dated 4th March, 2025 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Central School Service Commission (for short, “Commission”) being respondent no. 13 has been questioned since respondent no. 13 could not transfer the petitioner to one of the three schools preferred by the petitioner in her transfer application. Initially petitioner applied for transfer on Utshasree portal giving preference to three schools and petitioner was found to be a single teacher in the subject in the school where petitioner is presently working. Ultimately in connection with contempt proceeding initiated before the Hon’ble Division Bench concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) made a local arrangement in the school of the petitioner by deputing another teacher resulting in forwarding the transfer application of the petitioner to the Commission for taking decision. It needs to be stated herein that petitioner made an application for transfer on 4th September, 2024 in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 29^th August, 2024 passed on intra-court appeal being MAT 1457 of 2024 preferred by the petitioner. Transfer application of the petitioner was finally considered by respondent no. 13 but petitioner could not be transferred as it appears from the impugned memo dated 4th March, 2025.

2) Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that memo dated 4^th March, 2025 issued by respondent no. 13 is not elaborate and why petitioner’s transfer application could not be considered against one of the three schools preferred by the petitioner as was indicated in her transfer application was not discussed in said memo dated 4th March, 2025.

3) Learned advocate representing the Commission has made submission in order to defend memo dated 4th March, 2025 issued by respondent no. 13 and has submitted that initially petitioner preferred three schools in the transfer application which was made on Utshasree portal but subsequently when transfer application was made on 4^th September, 2024 in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 29th August, 2024 three different schools were preferred as a result whereof respondent no. 13 had to consider transfer of the petitioner to one of the three schools which were subsequently indicated in later transfer application.

4) On perusal of memo dated 4^th March, 2025, it appears that first preferred school of the petitioner could not be considered due to poor Pupil-Teacher Ratio. So far second and third preferred schools where petitioner prayed for transfer, transfer of the petitioner could not be allowed due to pendency of transfer applications of other candidates which were made on medical ground.

5) Petitioner made transfer application on “any other ground” under the Rule 4(e) and not on the ground as stipulated under Rule 4(a) to 4(d) which prevented respondent no. 13 to apply the provision under amended Rule 6(4)(d) as contained in notification dated 8^th September, 2021. Amended Rule 6(4)(d) is quoted below :-

the category of rule 4(a) to (d) by a teacher of a particular “6.(4)(d) In case of application for transfer in subject to a school which is already having sufficient or excess teacher in that subject, Central Commission shall not consider the application for transfer to opted school.

In the event when all options exercised are not found suitable, the incumbent may be considered for transfer to a school (havin