KAZI FIROZ HOSSAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) November, 2019 passed by the respondent no.5 by which the appellant was released from his present posting as a head teacher.

(2.) Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that although the nomenclature of the order by which the appellant was released from the post has been described as a release but, in effect, it is an order of transfer. He has drawn our attention to Rule 6 sub-rule (2) of the West Bengal Primary Education (Transfer of Teachers including Head Teacher) Rules, 2002. In support of his contention that the appellant had attained the age of 57 years, the appellant could not have been transferred to any other institution from his present post even under proviso to Rule 4 of the said Rules. Mr. Sanyal submits that in proviso to Rule 4, the Council may if it considers necessary for proper utilisation of service of a primary teacher in the interest of education transfer an approved teacher without maintaining any time limit of service has to be read harmoniously with Rule 6(2) of the said Rules of 2002. It is submitted that Rule 5 of the said Rules of 2002 deals with procedure for transfer. The appellant has not voluntarily asked for transfer. The appellant could not have been transferred under the garb of release order for an ulterior purpose. Mr. Sanyal also submits that the said transfer is in effect punitive.

(3.) Learned counsel for District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur, supports the order of release. Learned counsel has submitted that the reason for release order is clearly reflected in the order itself. The said release order was issued by the Chairman, Paschim Medinipur District Primary School Council, on consideration of all the materials on record. The Chairman has directed the appellant to act as a head teacher of Kultikri Primary School under Sadar Rural Circle immediately for interest of education and for maintaining the good atmosphere of the education of the school. It is submitted that since the materials are on record and it is a view possible that the Chairman could have formed under the facts and circumstances the said order cannot be held to be arbitrary.