IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi W.P.A. 6099 of 2021 Korban Ali Khan Vs. State of West Bengal And Others For the Petitioner : Mr. Ekramul Bari, Adv. Mr. Kazi Sajjad Alam, Adv. Ms. Afsana Khatun, Adv. Mr. Mainul Thander, Adv. For the Respondent No. 13 : Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas, Adv. Mr. Suman Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Rudransu Das, Adv. Mrs. Jyoti Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Manisha Joshi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anjan Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Bikramjit Mandal, Adv. For the WBBSE : Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Bibek Dutta, Adv. Heard on : 31.08.2026 and 01.09.2026 Judgment on : 22.09.2026 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:- 1. The writ petition challenges the recommendation letter dated February 15 2020 as well as consequent letter of appointment issued SK SOHEL UDDIN Digitally signed by SK SOHEL UDDIN Date: 2026.09.22 14:33:18 +05'30' 2 in favour of private respondent (Respondent No. 13). The writ petitioner also prays for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents West Bengal School Service Commission as well as West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to issue recommendation and appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner for his transfer to the post of Head Master of Arambagh High School. 2. By the impugned letter of recommendation, the respondent Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, recommended the general transfer of private respondent on special ground from the post of Head Master of Sodepur High School to the post of Head Master of Arambagh High School. Consequently, on the basis of such recommendation, by the impugned Memo issued by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the private respondent was transferred as Head Master of Arambagh High School. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per extant rules governing the transfer, i.e. West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015, a person belonging to the cadre can seek general transfer only once in his tenure of service. The private respondent has already availed such transfer earlier and therefore, he could not have been recommended for transfer for the second time. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the transfer of the private respondent was recommended at the 3 instructions of Minister-in-charge of the department which is not permissible in the rules governing transfer. The learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the pleadings of the private respondent where it has been admitted that the private respondent approached various authorities including the Minister-in-charge to pursue his case. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 7963 (The Headmaster, Bhotebari Sitanath High School & Ors.V. Mapita Samaddar & Ors.). 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the recommendation and order of transfer issued in favour of the private respondent were absolutely in violation of the extant rules and the same is liable to be set aside. Moreover, there were no materials in support of the transfer of the private respondent. It was stated that the transfer of the private respondent was based on political grounds which is not tenable in the eyes of law. To such proposition, learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance upon the authority of 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 17013 (Himani Parya v. The State of West Bengal and Others) and 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 12197 (Managing Committee of Kamala Girls High School and others v. State of West Bengal and Others). 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had applied for his general transfer in terms of the extant rules. The case of the petitioner was supported by the relevant 4 materials and the rules provided for such transfer. The authorities did not consider his prayer for transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Rule of 2015. He submits that the writ petitioner did never avail the benefit of general transfer provided in the rules. He applied for such transfer in accordance with the Rule of 2015 but the authorities did not consider the same and illegally refused to recommend his transfer. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate for the private respondent contended that it is true that the private respondent had availed the benefit of option to seek general transfer in terms of the rules but the impugned transfer was not a general transfer rather a transfer on special grounds i.e. on the medical grounds. It was submitted that for transfer on special grounds the limit of once in a lifetime, provided in the rules, is not applicable in case of transfer on special grounds. The rules provide for transfer on medical grounds of himself, his spouse and some other relatives. His transfer from Sodepur High School to Arambagh High School was in accordance with the rules of 2015 to which he was entitled to. 8. Learned advocate for the private respondent further submitted that his transfer was recommended and subsequently he was transferred to Arambagh High School, strictly in accordance with Rule 4 (1) (a) of the Rule of 2015. For transfer under such provision, the 5 limit of distance and length of qualifying service is not a bar for seeking transfer on special grounds. 9. Additionally, learned advocate for the private respondent also submitted that the private respondent, upon his transfer, has been discharging his duties as Head Master of Arambagh High School since 2021. He is due to retire with the month of November 2026. 10. Learned advocate for the State respondent submitted that respondent No. 13 applied for transfer on special grounds and Department of School Education approved his prayer for such transfer from Sodepur High School to Arambagh High School. Consequently, respondent no. 2 recommended his transfer. Subsequently, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued the order of transfer of respondent no. 13. Under such order, respondent no. 13 was directed to join the new assignment within 5 days of his release from the existing assignment. 11. Learned advocate for State respondent further submitted that the writ petitioner had also applied for his transfer to Arambagh High School. However, since the prayer of respondent no. 13 was allowed and he was directed to join Arambagh High School, the private respondent accordingly, joined such school in the year 2021. There remained no vacancy in such school. For such reason, the prayer of petitioner could not be allowed. 6 12. The petitioner has been working as the headmaster of Rina S. B. Vidayatan. He is a resident of Khanaklul and has been suffering from various ailments. The petitioner applied before the competent authority for his transfer from his present posting to Arambagh high school in accordance with the provisions of West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer) Rule, 2013. It was contended that when the petitioner applied for such transfer, there was vacancy in Arambagh high school. The petitioner also made representations before the district inspector of schools, Commissioner of School education, principal Secretary in this regard. 13. According to the case made out by the petitioner, during the pendency of his application, respondent no. 13, who was serving as headmaster at Sodepur was also considered for general transfer to the post of head Master at Arambagh high school by the Commissioner of School education and subsequently an appointment letter was issued in his favour. According to petitioner, the private respondent was initially working as headmaster at Udayrajpur high school and on his option, by a general transfer; respondent no. 13 was transferred to Sodepur high school. It was contended that the private respondent could not have been allowed transfer for the 2nd time to Arambagh high school as according to the rules a teacher can be allowed to enjoy transfer once in his tenure of service. 7 14. The petitioner also came up with a case that his application for general transfer was made on a special ground in conformity with the rules, however his application was kept in abeyance and the same is lying pending before the Commissioner of School education for necessary recommendation as well as issuance of appointment letter by the West Bengal Board of secondary education. The petitioner also contended that the respondent no. 13 applied for transfer after the petitioner applied, nevertheless, the application of private respondent was considered by the authorities whereas the application filed by the petitioner was kept pending. According to the case made out by the writ petitioner, the issuance of appointment later in favour of private respondent was malafide, arbitrary and whimsical. 15. By filing the instant writ application, the writ petitioner prayed for following substantive reliefs, among others, namely: a. “A writ of or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents, their agents, servants, subordinate employees and/or assignees to cancel, clash, set aside and withdraw the impugned recommendation later dated 15.02.2020 and appointment later in favour of private respondent forthwith. b. A writ of order in the nature of mandamus for wearing the respondent particularly the West Bengal school service commission and West Bengal board of secondary education to issue a recommendation later and appointment later in favour of the petitioner for transfer to the post of head Master to Arambagh high school. 8 c. A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents to transmit and produce the entire original records before this Hon’ble court so that conscionable justice may be done d. A writ in the nature of the Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from exercising power not warranted under the statute.” 16. In this writ application, the main grievance of the petitioner is that he had applied before the authorities for general transfer on special grounds in accordance with the extant rules. Such application of the petitioner was not decided. Subsequently, the private respondent applied for transfer on special ground which was considered and allowed by the authorities illegally and that too in violation of the prevailing rules governing such transfer. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the transfer of private respondent was carried out in strict compliance of the extant rules. There was no illegality in such transfer. Moreover, both the writ petitioner and the private respondent applied for transfer to the same school, the prayer of the private respondent having been allowed, there was no vacancy in the said school. Therefore, application of transfer of the writ petitioner could not be granted. 17. The transfer of employees of School Education Department is governed by the provisions of West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015. It would be apposite to set out the relevant provisions of 9 such Rules for proper appreciation of the disputes involved in the present writ application. “3. Primary Condition of General Transfer (1) An incumbent shall be eligible for General Transfer only if he/she is confirmed in service and completed 5 (five) years of satisfactory service in that particular school and in particular post from which he/she seeks General Transfer, Experience, if any, in the previous school and in the previous post except the experience in the post and school from which he/she is applying, shall not be considered while counting the experience in terms of score. (2) No application under Gernal Transfer shall be entertained if he/she intends to get transferred to a school within a distance of 25 KMs from the present school. (3) Where an incumbent refuses to join his/her preferred school after due recommendation by the Commission, such incumbent concerned shall not be allowed to submit application for three subsequent terms of General Transfer including intra-regional and inter- regional transfer. Provided that an incumbent whose name has been recommended for General Transfer before coming into force of these rules, the application of such an incumbent for General Transfer shall not be disallowed under these rules. (4) The General Transfer under these rules shall be available once in a year and a list shall be published in the website of the Central Commission and the remaining vacancies due to non-joining aafter publication of the list shall not be included in the list of 10 the General Transfer under these rules for the next year and such vacancies may be considered for the purpose of General Transfer afresh. 4. General Transfer on Special ground (5) An incumbent belonging to the following categories may apply for transfer on any of the special grounds, namely:- (a). Any teacher or non-teaching staff or his/her son/daughter or spouse suffering from malignant diseases, heart diseases, renal failure, thalassemia, replacement of organ, serious gynaecological disorder or physically disablement of 40% or more or to assist in proper treatment of self or his/her son/daughter or spouse; (b). Any woman teacher or non-teaching staff whose husband died prematurely or divorced or is a victim of crime; (c). Teachers or non-teaching staff serving in Aided/Sponsored schools where the serving places of th spuse are away beyond 50 KMs. (6) In respect of special ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the State Government may cause medical enquiry for satisfaction on urgency of transfer of a teacher. (7) In respect of special ground Victim of Crime mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the application may be considered, where FIR has been lodged and case has been instituted. (8) In respect of special ground mentioned in clause (c) of sub-rule (1), 10% of the application on this special ground shall be considered by the West Bengal School Service Commission for recommendation in a year on receiving applications after publication of notice of 11 General Transfer and only one member of the spouse may apply for general transfer under this special ground and priority shall be given to the senior most applicant serving maximum period in the present place of posting at a maximum distance to the propose place of posting in comparison to others.” 18. As it transpires from the materials placed before this court, the writ petitioner applied for general transfer from Rina S. B. Vidayatan to Arambagh High School by submitting an application to the authorities on September 4, 2020. He was posted in such school since January 29, 2015. Such proforma application for general transfer was appended with a formal application by the writ petitioner where distance of 60 KMs between his residence and place of posting and some disturbance by local leaders including some staff of the school was set up as a ground for seeking general transfer. The petitioner figured in the ‘list of teaching staff regarding transfer on special ground’ published on November 6, 2020, under the signature of District Inspector of Schools (SE). 19. On the other hand, the private respondent no. 13 applied for general transfer by submitting the proforma application on July 28, 2020. In such application form the private respondent did not disclose the distance between the school and his permanent residence recorded in his service book. He also did not divulge the date from when he was posted in the school from where he was seeking transfer 12 as required in column 7 (i) of the application form. In fact, the private respondent left several columns of the application form and thereby did not disclose vital information required for seeking general transfer. Incidentally, the affidavit filed by private respondent in the present proceeding discloses that he was transferred as Head Master of Sodepur High School on July 20, 2016. 20. At the time of hearing of the instant writ petition, a case has been made out by the private respondent that he sought general transfer on special grounds of illness of his wife. However, the application form submitted by the respondent does not support such contention. Moreover, the private respondent, on the very date of submission of his profoma application, submitted an application to the Minister-in-charge, School Education Department. In such application, the private respondent sought to be transferred to Arambagh High School on Administrative grounds. He stated in such application that if he was given an opportunity to work as Head Master of Arambagh High School, he would serve to his best to make an all-round development of the school and utilize all the government aids in a proper way. He also stated in such application that he will be obliged if he was transferred to Arambagh High School on administrative grounds. Neither the proforma application form nor the application submitted by the private respondent does disclose that it 13 was accompanied by some medical documents concerning the ailments of his wife. 21. The impugned recommendation and order of transfer issued in favour of respondent no. 13 does not disclose that the private respondent was recommended for transfer and was transferred on medical grounds of his wife’s ailments. Rule 4 (2) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015 authorises the State Government to cause a medical enquiry for satisfaction on urgency of transfer of a teacher. Nothing has been brought on record that such an enquiry was ever conducted in respect of the prayer of respondent no. 13 for his transfer. In fact, since the private respondent sought his transfer to Arambagh High School purely on administrative grounds and his application was not supported by relevant medical documents of his wife, no question of a medical enquiry does arise at all. In such view of the facts, the claim of the respondent no. 13 that his transfer on the basis of impugned recommendation for transfer and consequential order of transfer were on special ground governed under the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (a) of the Rules of 2015 is not tenable. 22. Besides that, it is not denied in the affidavit in opposition that the private respondent had already availed the option of general transfer in terms of the Rules of 2015. Rule 9 of such rules provides that “every teacher and non-teaching staff will get the benefit of 14 General Transfer/Mutual Transfer once in his/her entire service period”. If that be so, the private respondent having already availed such benefit could not have been extended such benefit for the second or subsequent time. Moreover, as noted hereinbefore, the private respondent was transferred as Head Master of Sodepur High School on July 20, 2016. While rendering service in such assignment, he applied for another transfer, by submitting an application on July 28, 2020, which was submitted within 5 years of his posting at Sodepur High School. The application so filed by respondent no. 13 ought to have been out rightly refused as the same was in violation of the provisions of Rule 3 (1) where, satisfactory service of minimum of 5 years is sine qua non for seeking a transfer. On this score as well, the recommendation for transfer and consequential order of transfer issued in favour of respondent no. 13 seems bad in law and in violation of the rules governing the transfer of teachers and non- teaching staff of West Bengal School Service Commission. 23. Upon examining various provisions of the Rules of 2015, this High Court in the case of Himani Parya (supra) allowed the appeal and observed to the following: “27. Thorough reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that the right conferred by the said Rules to seek transfer is not an absolute right, free from restrictions. On the contrary, the right is exercisable on fulfilment of various conditions. If any teacher, who is yet to be confirmed in 15 service or any teacher who has not put in more than five years' satisfactory service in the particular school and in the particular post from which he/she seeks General Transfer is allowed to seek a transfer on Special Grounds (accepting the contention of Mr Bhattacharya that Rule 4 is independent of Rule 3), the same would result in utter chaos and anomaly creating administrative problems which might be difficult to overcome. An interpretation of the said Rules having the potential of giving rise to such problems has to be plainly avoided. In the eventuality of an applicant seeking General Transfer on Special Grounds being held not required to possess the eligibility criteria for General Transfer, as laid down in Rule 3, an unconfirmed teacher who does not have a right to the post or a teacher having served a school/on a post for less than 5 (five) years could then claim transfer on Special Grounds. Similarly, a teacher who has served in a particular school in excess of 5 years but such service is not satisfactory and disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against him could escape its rigours by somehow obtaining a recommendation for transfer upon mere fulfilment of either of clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Rule 4(1). Would the said Rules permit such a teacher to seek a transfer even on special grounds? The answer has to be an emphatic “NO”. What the said Rules envisage is transfer in either of two situations i.e. (i) General Transfer, where Special Grounds exist; and (ii) General Transfer, where Special Grounds do not exist. In case of a claim for transfer where Special Grounds exist, the scheme of the said Rules [see Rule 6(2) read with Rule 7] provide for the claim to be placed on the fast track whereas in the latter case, the cumbersome process of assessment of rival claims would have to be resorted to first (see Rule 6) whereafter the most deserving would be recommended. Cases covered under clause (c) of Rule 4(1) are also required to be considered in 16 terms of the procedure laid down in Rule 6, but in such a case too, the applicant for transfer fulfilling clause (c) would have precedence over other applicants seeking General Transfer not on special grounds mentioned in Rule 4(1). But in either case, it seems to be the legislative intent that the conditions specified in Rules 3 and 5 have to be fulfilled.” 24. As to the allegation that respondent no. 13 submitted an application before the Minister-in-charge of School Education Department and his transfer was an outcome of the recommendation of Minister-in-charge, the impugned recommendation and order of transfer does not refer to any recommendation by the Minister-in- charge. But at the same time, it is quite established that the transfer of respondent no. 13 was recommended and transfer order was issued by the authorities in absolute violation of the rules governing transfer. 25. In Mapita Samaddar (supra) a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that, “23. That apart, the writ petitioner also did not fulfil any of the requirements for consideration of her general transfer on special ground. From the materials that are available on record, it does not appear the writ petitioner or her spouse/son has been suffering from any of the diseases spelt out in rule 4(1) (a). The attempt of Mr. Ray to bring the case of the writ petitioner within the last alternative of rule 4(1)(a) i.e. to assist in proper treatment of her son, is one advanced in desperation. The son of the writ petitioner, a young kid of twenty-two months was stated to suffer from cold and cough as well as high fever. Most children of such age usually suffer 17 from such ailments and the writ petitioner's son is no exception. Rule 4(1)(a) cannot be read that broadly so as to include any disease from which the teacher's spouse/child suffers calling for assistance in proper treatment thereof and for which a transfer could be contemplated. We are inclined to hold that treatment of diseases of the nature found in rule 4(1)(a) would be of absolute necessity if a teacher seeks to obtain a general transfer on special ground. 24. The aforesaid lacuna has to be viewed seriously, notwithstanding the personal difficulties that the writ petitioner may have been facing in her personal life. 25. Having held that the writ petitioner was not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Transfer Rules, we now move on to look at the file that was placed by Mr. Datta. The file bearing no. SL/5S-231/16 was generated once the writ petition came to be presented by the writ petitioner. In such file, we found a document generated in reference to file no. SE/S/15/02-16. It contains a list of teaching and non- teaching staff of different schools who had applied for transfer on special ground and whose prayers were recommended by dignitaries. It further proceeds to record that all the applications were scrutinized in terms of the Transfer Rules and findings were noted against each of them. The list contains the names of 48 candidates, majority of whom were recommended for transfer by Hon'ble Ministers-in-Charge of various departments of the Government, Hon'ble Ministers of State, Hon'ble Members of Parliament, Hon'ble Members of the Legislative Assembly, Secretaries of Departments, Army Officers, a Borough Chairman of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, etc. The name of the writ petitioner appears at serial no. 16. Curiously, her case was not recommended by any dignitary. Also, since she was reportedly suffering from high cholesterol, triglyceride, uric acid, sugar, etc., it was 18 observed in the note that she had no genuine special ground. Despite the same, the writ petitioner's name came to be recommended. For the purpose of a decision on the present appeal, we need not embarrass the Hon'ble Minister-in- charge, School Education Department on whose approval some of the teachers having genuine ground for transfer on special ground reaped the benefit of the Transfer Rules but would record our utter displeasure at the manner in which such transfers have been recommended. Suffice it to record that the writ petitioner was successful in obtaining a recommendation for general transfer on special ground despite clear indication in the note that she was not entitled to such special consideration. 26. For the foregoing reasons, we declare that the appellants are under no obligation to issue ‘release order’ in favour of the writ petitioner based on a recommendation which itself is tainted. The judgment and order impugned stands set aside, with the result that W.P. 1888 (W) of 2016 shall stand dismissed. The appeal (MAT 1466 of 2016) stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. Before parting, we wish to place on record our serious dissatisfaction as to how without the writ petitioner being found entitled to general transfer on special ground, the assistant secretary could recommend her name for transfer to the Chairman of the Central Commission. An appropriate enquiry ought to be initiated by the School Education Department upon granting adequate opportunity to the assistant secretary to explain his position, and appropriate action taken against him if he is found guilty. A note of caution is sounded that should any recommendation for transfer be made in future on the basis of recommendations of political leaders and such incident comes to the notice of this Court, we would not hesitate to come down heavily on it.” 19 26. It may be noted here that in the ‘list of teaching staff regarding transfer on special ground’ published by the office of District Inspector of Schools (SE) prepared on November 6, 2020, the name of the writ petitioner was there in such list. Such list did not contain the name of the private respondent. If that be so, it can easily be inferred that the name of respondent no. 13 was under consideration for transfer by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) till the publication of such list and his name was recommended for transfer giving a go bye to the existing rules in this regard. 27. Similarly in the case of Managing Committee of Kamala Girls High School (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that, “57. On a conjoint reading of Rules 3 and 4 of 2015 Rules, as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench In the matter of: Mapita Samaddar (supra) that while Rule 3 provides that basic conditions while seeking transfer is required to be fulfilled. Certain special conditions are also curved out and incorporated in Rule 4. A teacher fulfilling the basic conditions, as of right, may apply for and claim consideration of his/her prayer for transfer in accordance with the transfer rules; but it is not quite the other way round. Fulfillment of the special conditions, in a given case without fulfillment of the basic conditions would not authorize issuance of a transfer even on special ground. The situation is clarified under Rule 5 of the 2015 Transfer Rules, which applies to all teachers seeking transfer including teachers seeking transfer on special grounds. This ratio and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench was also followed by another 20 subsequent Division Bench In the matter of: Himani Parya (supra). In the instant case, admittedly the teacher did not complete her five years of satisfactory service at Kankhuli Girls. Therefore, the basic conditions under Rule 3 were not fulfilled. 58. In addition to the above, this Court is also of the view that, when the recommendation for transfer was issued on special ground that the teacher was Victim of Crime, the sole document being the application dated 5-1-2016 submitted by the teacher, primarily requires a deep and an avid consideration. The said application dated 5-1-2016 merely contains some bold statements as to ransacking of the office of the teacher while she was posted as Headmistress at Kankhuli Girls. As already noted above no particulars of criminal element was disclosed so that a conclusive finding could have been arrived at that the teacher was Victim of Crime. The incident, according to the teacher led her to become Victim of Crime has been narrated and pleaded by her, inter alia, in para 17 to her writ petition. A plain and meaningful reading of the averments would show that the statements are general and bold in nature and no particulars have been disclosed. The statements would show that the teacher did not lodge any, written complaint before the Jurisdictional Police Station neither any FIR was registered, far to speak of initiation of any police case by the police authority. 59. ………………………….. 60. When a teacher is to be transferred on special ground that the teacher has been Victim of Crime, the primary duty of the authority considering the issue was to apply its mind meaningfully and then upon reaching to a reasonable conclusion that the teacher was Victim of Crime, the transfer order/recommendation for transfer ought to be issued. 21 61. From the application submitted by the teacher dated 5-1- 2016 save and except some bold statements, no conclusion could be arrived at that there was really any criminal incidence took place of which the teacher was the victim. The records show that while passing the order for transfer including the recommendation for transfer, the relevant state authorities did not record any satisfaction of their mind on the basis of the said application dated 5-1-2016 that the teacher was Victim of Crime. Even the order passed by the President of the Board dated 26-6-2018 in presence of all interested parties does not show any reasonable conclusion or finding and the application of mind by the President of the Board while confirming the recommendation for transfer and giving the consequential directions as mentioned therein. 62. To apply the provision under Rule 4(lb) of 2015 Transfer Rule for transfer on special ground, the record does not show while issuing the transfer order/recommendation for transfer or the confirmation of the transfer by the Board, there was any contemporaneous material before them so that these authorities could have reasonably applied their mind to reach to a satisfaction that the teacher was Victim of Crime. If on the basis of the said application for transfer dated 5-1-2016 as the same stands, a teacher is allowed to be transferred on special ground being victim of crime, the provision under Rule 4(1b) of the Transfer Rule of 2015 would be ornamentally applied de horse its statutory requirement and the object of engrafting the said provision in the transfer rules as framed by the rule framers. When a rule is framed by the rule framers it is deemed by fiction of law that such rule shall have to be applied in its strict spirit, form and with the object behind it. Just because the concerned minister-in-charge of the education department under whose supervision and approval the transfer order was issued or a higher authority of the 22 education department has allowed it, would not at all amount to satisfaction of the legal requirements or their application of mind to reach at the final conclusion for transfer on the basis of the statutory requirement under the rules. 63. Applying the said tests of law discussed above, this court is of the firm view that, simply on the basis of the said application dated 5-1-2016 no transfer order could have been and/or should have been issued in favour of the teacher on special ground that the teacher had been Victim of Crime. Thus, the said recommendation for transfer dated 11-1-2017 cannot sustain in law and following the same all consequential steps are bad in law.” 28. Therefore, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the recommendation for transfer issued by the Commissioner of Schools vide impugned Memo No. 01451/GT/DSE dated February 15, 2021 and consequential order of transfer vide Memo No. WBBSE/HOOG/GT(S)/HM-00244 dated February 15, 2021, in favour of respondent No. 13 were not issued in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, the aforesaid Memos and all consequential steps taken following the said memos are bad in law and cannot be sustained. Respondent no. 13 has to be reverted back. 29. Consequently, the impugned recommendation dated February 15, 2021 and all consequential steps taken, following such recommendation is hereby set aside. Respondent no. 13 shall be reverted back to his earlier place of posting where he was posted prior to the impugned transfer. The respondents West Bengal School 23 Service Commission and West Bengal Board of Secondary Education shall issue recommendation letter as well as appointment letter for appointment of the writ petitioner on transfer at Arambagh High School as Head Master. Such order shall be carried out by the concerned respondents within 10 days from the communication of this order. 30. With such observations and directions, the instant writ petition being WPA 6099 of 2021 stands disposed of, however, without any order as to costs. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 31. Parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court. 32. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. [MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.] Later : 1. Upon delivery of judgment, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 13 prays for stay of the operation of the judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2026. 2. The prayer is considered and rejected. [MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]