PABITRIBARUAH Vs. MRIDULA KAKATIHAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein who was the respondent No.4 in the writ proceeding before the learned Single Judge, was transferred from the Kamalabari Girls' High School along with the post of LDA held by her in the said school. The Headmistress of the school i.e. the respondent No. 1 instituted the writ proceeding, out of which the present appeal has been arisen calling into question the aforesaid action of the authorities. The learned Single Judge interfered with the order of transfer after holding the same to be an arbitrary action, made to further the personal interest of the present appellant. Aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.

(2.) We have heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein, being the Headmistress of the school would have no locus standi to challenge the transfer order of the present appellant from the school in question. This position is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 who however submits that the challenge in the writ proceeding was really against the transfer of the post. From the averments made in the affidavit filed by the official respondents before the learned Single Judge, we find that the reason assigned for transfer of the post in question is that number of students in the school being below seventy, it was decided by the authority that the work load in the school could be managed by one LDC and therefore, the 2nd post being redundant was sought to be transferred by the impugned order. In the appeal before us, an order of the Inspector of Schools, Jorhat dated 18.6.96, Annexure 5 has been brought on record to show that from enquiry made, it has been revealed that at the relevant point of time only 72 girls were enrolled in Kamalabari Girls' High School and two LDAs were not required for the school and for that reason it was suggested by the Inspector of Schools that one post along with the incumbent i.e. the appellant be transferred. The action impugned in the writ proceeding appears to have been taken pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation.