Rajasthan High Court: In an appeal challenging the Single-judge’s order which affirmed the transfer order posting the appellant to teach English as valid when she is not qualified to teach that subject under applicable rules, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah*, JJ., quashed the impugned order and held that administrative convenience cannot override qualifications prescribed by law. The Court further held that imposing such a transfer poses a risk of adverse consequences for the appellant and also violates students’ right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India by depriving them of a qualified teacher.
In the instant matter, the appellant was appointed as a Teacher Grade-III on 27-03-2006. Her appointment order did not specify the subject to be taught. The appellant possessed a B.A. degree with English as a compulsory subject and History and Economics as her optional/elective subjects.
On 29-07-2019, she was declared surplus and transferred to teach English in the Secondary Education Department, despite not being appointed to teach English. The petitioner challenged the impugned transfer vide a writ petition which was disposed of on 07-05-2024 with interim relief made absolute, allowing administrative liberty to the department but without mandating a transfer.
On 09-01-2025, a fresh transfer order was issued posting her as Teacher Level-II in English at Government Senior Secondary School, 6FA Radewala, which she challenged and the Judge dismissed the petition, vide order dated 04-02-2025, and held that her appointment did not specify any subject, and she could be assigned any subject per administrative requirements. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant challenged the same before the Court.
The appellant contended that the appellant was appointed with qualifications in Social Science subjects (History, Economics) and not in English. The appellant relied on the guidelines issued by the Director, Primary Education dated 16-02-2016 which stated that a teacher is to be treated as qualified in the subject pursued as an optional during graduation, not a compulsory subject. The appellant further cited Advertisement No. 13/2022 and Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and argued that English as a compulsory subject in graduation does not qualify a person to teach English. It was emphasised that assigning her to teach English is not only contrary to law but also risked adverse civil consequences.
However, the respondents argued in favour of impugned order and contended that since the appellant’s appointment order did not specify a subject, she could be assigned any subject as per the needs of the institution.
The Court stated that although transfer orders are generally not interfered with unless found to be vitiated by mala fide, want of jurisdiction, or punitive intent as per Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532. However, the Court noted that the instant matter is “a peculiar case wherein the appellant has been asked to teach a subject for which she was not specifically appointed,” and therefore, the effect of the transfer is “punitive in nature and having been passed with malice in law.”
“…the appellant has been asked to teach a subject for which she was not specifically appointed and therefore, the impact of the order would be punitive in nature and having been passed with malice in law and could not have been passed in the guise of any administrative exigencies.”
The Court noted that the appellant’s elective subjects are History and Economics, and per the 2016 guidelines, she is deemed a Social Science teacher. The Court also referred to Rule 266 of the Panchayati Raj Rules and the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 2021, both of which mandates that for teaching English, the corresponding language must be an optional subject.
The Court warned that the appellant could face departmental proceedings for poor results in a subject she is unqualified to teach and held that such misplacement also denies students the benefit of a qualified subject teacher, thereby violating Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.
The Court quashed the transfer order dated 09-01-2025 and the Single Judge’s order dated 04-02-2025. The Court directed the respondents to post the appellant at the same place or at a nearby place where she is required to teach students the subject of Social Science as per her qualifications.
[Gauri v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 459/2025, Decided on 16-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Shah
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha, Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Ravindra Jhala, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
