Orissa High Court: While deciding a batch of petitions filed by government school teachers challenging their transfer orders and a government letter dated 13-05-2025, wherein it was contended that the transfers violated statutory Transfer Guidelines and were influenced by political recommendations of MPs and MLAs, a Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., held that the impugned transfer orders as well as the letter authorising such recommendations were unsustainable in law. The Court quashed both the transfer orders and the letter, directed that the teachers be continued in their original places of posting until the end of the academic year and thereafter restored, and further mandated that all departmental appeals be disposed of within four weeks.
Background:
A set of teachers challenged their transfer orders before the Court. Some petitions involved transfer orders already under departmental appeals, while others questioned the government letter dated 13-05-2025 that allowed Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) and Members of Legislative Assembly (‘MLAs’) to recommend cases of teacher transfers to the authorities.
They contended that the transfer orders were contrary to the statutory Transfer Guidelines dated 14-05-2025, which regulate the process of transfer. They argued that the Guidelines required decisions to be made by a Transfer Committee on normative grounds, but the orders were vitiated by political influence. The letter dated 13-05-2025 was said to be without authority of law and unsustainable. Petitioners also submitted that some transfers were wrongly shown as being made on request, when no such requests were made, and those teachers were denied transfer allowances.
The State resisted the petitions by asserting that all public servants, including teachers, are liable to be transferred on administrative grounds and cannot seek exemption. It argued that there was a provision for departmental appeal against transfer orders, which was an efficacious remedy, and therefore the teachers should have been relegated to appellate authorities.
The State further contended that the Transfer Guidelines were merely directory provisions, and their violation alone would not justify writ petitions. With respect to the letter dated 13-05-2025, the State described it as Executive Instructions enabling MPs and MLAs to recommend transfers based on local requirements, subject to norms laid down in the letter, with the final decision resting with the Transfer Committee. It was also argued that teachers cannot remain in the same schools indefinitely and that transfers serve administrative exigency.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that there were two sets of transfer Guidelines dated 14-05-2025 promulgated by the State Government, published in the Gazette Notifications, and that these Guidelines had statutory force under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court noted that these Guidelines were not mere executive instructions but carried statutory authority, prescribing the mode and modalities for transfer of teachers.
The Court highlighted that the Guidelines constituted a Transfer Committee for effecting transfers in light of prescribed parameters. The Committee was required to take institutional decisions after verifying lists of eligible candidates prepared through computer-based programmes, and orders were to be issued by the Director of Elementary Education.
The Court observed that political interference or affinity in the campus was not desirable in general and particularly in matters of transfer of teachers. It found dismaying the functional nature of the impugned letter dated 13-05-2025, which preceded the promulgation of the statutory Guidelines. The Court noted that the letter provided for MPs and MLAs recommending transfers of teachers, but it did not disclose under what authority it had been issued to claim legal efficacy.
The Court further noted that in several impugned orders, the decisions were taken only on the recommendation of MPs and MLAs, without reference to the parameters of the Guidelines. It was emphasised that these Committees were unjustifiably swayed away by such recommendation. The Court observed that, in any circumstance, this letter could not have factored in the decision making of transfers.
The Court however emphasised that an order without jurisdiction could be examined by the Writ Court even when an alternate remedy was available.
The Court held that the petitions were to be allowed, quashing both the impugned letter dated 13-05-2025 and the transfer orders. The Court directed that teachers who had already reported to their new postings should continue until the end of the academic year to avoid prejudice to students, after which they be restored to their original positions.
The Court further ordered that all departmental appeals be disposed of within four weeks and clarified that a fresh transfer process may still be undertaken strictly under the statutory Guidelines.
[Ranjan Kumar Tripathy v. State of Orissa, W.P.(C) Nos. 20875 of 2025, decided on 27-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners — Kunal Ku. Swain, K. Swain & J.R. Khuntia, Advocates; Sukanta Ku. Dalai, P. Swain, S. Mahapatra, B. Bhuyan, J. Bhuyan & S.K. Panda, Advocates; Durgesh Narayan Rath, A.K. Saa & S. Das, Advocates; Ramdas Achary, S. Das, S. Srichandan & P. Agarwal, Advocates; Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate; Mohit Ku. Pati, M. Pati, S. Kar & S.S. Pati, Advocates; Purusottam Chuli, P. Nath & P. Punyatoya, Advocates; Sameer Ku. Das, P.K. Behera & N. Jena, Advocates; Agasti Kanungo, C. Nayak, N.K. Mishra & S. Sukla, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties: Saroj Ku. Jee, Addl. Govt. Advocate, R.R. Ray, N.K. Sen, P.K. Samal & S.R. Mishra, Advocates, K.K. Rout, S.K. Rout, S.K. Baral, P.N. Pattnaik, T.S. Swaraj, S. Sthitaprajna, S. Sahoo & S.K. Bhuyan, Advocates