22.09.2026 Ct. No.652 D/L 05 ( NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 21041 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2026 Priyanka Mondal Sau Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, Mrs. Pritha Biswas Mrs. Upasana Sarkar …for the Petitioner Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Sr. Standing Council Ms. Marry Dutta, Mr. Jogannath Chatterjee …for the State Mrs. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Bibek Dutta …for the W.B.B.S.E. 1. An order of the District Inspector of School Secondary Education, Barrackpore North 24 Parganas/respondent no. 4 dated August 30, 2022 in Utsashree Portal rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for transfer is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the rejection made by the respondent no. 4/D.I. for the reason of distance between the school and her place of residence being less than 25 kilometres is not commensurate with the statutory provision. 3. Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the 2 West Bengal School Service Commission (General Transfer, Transfer on Special Grounds and Reallocation) Rules, 2015. 4. He submits that according to Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 2015, no application under general transferred should be entertained by the authority, if the intending candidate wants to get transfer to a school within a distance of 25 kilometres from the present school. 5. According to the petitioner she intends to get transferred to a school situated beyond the stipulated distance in the said Rules of 2015. 6. Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury, learned Advocate has indicated that the respondent no. 4/D.I. has considered erroneously and in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of 2015, in finding, that distance between the residence of the petitioner to the school is the relevant factor, whereas it is actually not so in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, but the distance between the two schools is. 7. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that in an earlier application of the petitioner, the respondent no.4 /D.I. took a point to reject her prayer for transfer on the ground that the petitioner was the single subject teacher in the school. Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on a 3 judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupak Dhua Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. in FMA 995 of 2025 order dated 31.07.2025 in which, he submits that, the Court has categorically held that the single subject teacher of the school should not be treated as ineligible for transfer in terms of the Rules. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner, the order of the D.I. rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for transfer is liable to be set aside and an appropriate order in redressing of grievance of the petitioner is required to be passed. 9. The respondent authority is represented by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate. It is submitted by the respondent that though the petitioner claims distance between her existing school and the school she intends to be transferred to, to be beyond the statutory limit of 25 kilometres, but the petitioner has not produced any document in support of her such claim. Therefore, according to the respondent, the petitioner’s prayer is unsubstantiated and incomplete. 10. Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the material on record as well as the Rules 2015, as relied on by the petitioner and 4 the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Rupak Dhua (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondent no.4/D.I. dated August 30, 2022 suffers from gross violation of the provisions under the 2015 Rules. The impugned order as above is passed on misconceived perception of the provision of the Rule by the said respondent and cannot be sustained being in stark contradiction with particularly the Rule 3(2) of the 2015 Rules and the settled principles of law. 11. Hence, accordingly this Court finds it proper to set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 4/D.I. dated August 30, 2022 in Utsoshree Portal. 12. This writ petition is thus disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application seeking transfer, both physically and through the online portal, if the same is operational at the present moment. 13. Let the respondent authorities including the Head of the Institution proceed with the same in either mode, in accordance with law. Let the Head of Institution not subscribe any additional ground along with his recommendation as mentioned on the earlier occasion, while forwarding the petitioner’s application for transfer, to the respondent/DI. 5 14. Let the respondent/DI, upon receipt of the recommendation of the Head of the Institution, either physically or through the on line portal, as the case may be, duly consider the same in accordance with Rules of 2015 and the settled legal principles and pass his order, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt recommendation/note of the Head of the Institution. 15. It is needless to mention that the respondent/DI, upon considering the prayer of the petitioner favourably, shall immediately take all necessary steps for implementation of transfer of the petitioner, as prayed for. Otherwise, he shall dispose of the petitioner’s application, by dint of a reasoned order. 16. This writ petition is disposed of with the directions as above. 17. Parties shall act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)