08.08.2025. 10 Ct.No.7. as WPA 15050 of 2022 Pragati Bose Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Ms. Haritri Roy, Mr. Ratul Ghosal. … for the Petitioner. Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy. … for the State. Mr. Shamimul Bari, Ms. Jhilik Singha, Ms. Asmita Mitra. …for the School Authority. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the legality and/or propriety of the order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, rejecting the petitioner’s application for transfer on the ground that the school had already exhausted the 10% quota prior to forwarding the petitioner’s application. 2. On 27th July, 2025, when the matter was last taken up for hearing, this Court, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, requested Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, learned Advocate appearing for the State, to submit a report disclosing the stand of the State in respect of the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Today, Ms. Nandy has submitted a report, which indicates that the concerned District Inspector of Schools is willing to reconsider the petitioner’s 2 transfer application dated 7th February, 2022 in accordance with law as it stood at the material point of time, if so, directed by this Court. The report submitted by Ms. Nandy is taken on record. 3. Mr. Panda, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s transfer application, which was submitted offline, was previously rejected on the ground that the school had exhausted the 10% quota before the petitioner submitted his application for transfer. He submits that, to process transfer applications of Assistant Teachers and Headmasters/Headmistresses across the State, the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal, framed the West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Ground and Re- allocation) Rules, 2015 (for short, the 2015 Rules). He further submits that the 2015 Rules were amended twice, once in 2021 and again in 2022. Accordingly, he prays that the District Inspector of Schools be directed to reconsider the petitioner’s transfer application in accordance with the 2015 Rules, as amended up to date. 4. Mr. Bari, learned Advocate representing the School Authority, opposes the petitioner’s contention and raises the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition. He points out that the petitioner’s earlier transfer application was rejected, and thereafter, the petitioner filed another transfer application on medical grounds. He submits that the present writ petition, filed alleging inaction in considering the petitioner’s subsequent application, is not maintainable in its 3 present form. However, he has no objection if the petitioner’s transfer application is reconsidered by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. 5. In reply, Mr. Panda, referring to an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in MAT 754 of 2022, submits that despite the rejection of an earlier transfer application, an aggrieved person is entitled to file a fresh application requesting consideration of his grievances. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, particularly taking note of the stand taken by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, I am of the view that there is no requirement for judicial determination of any issue at this stage in the writ petition. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the petitioner’s application dated 7th February, 2022 in accordance with the 2015 Rules, as amended up to date, without being influenced by his previous decision. 7. The petitioner’s application for transfer shall be considered and disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the District Inspector of Schools has himself expressed willingness to reconsider the petitioner’s transfer application, the earlier order passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the petitioner’s transfer application is set aside. 8. It is clarified that if the District Inspector of Schools finds substance in the petitioner’s contention, appropriate follow-up action shall be taken, which may include forwarding 4 the petitioner’s application to the School Service Commission. If the District Inspector of Schools arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner’s contention lacks merit, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. 9. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of, however, no order as to costs. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)