SUDHIR JUMAR SEN Vs. DIST SCHOOL BOARD OF 24 PGS
LAWS(CAL)-1961-8-6
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 01,1961

SUDHIR JUMAR SEN Appellant
VERSUS
DIST SCHOOL BOARD OF 24 PGS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS Rule is disposed of on a short ground. It is admitted that the petitioner, a teacher in Nakphul Free Primary School, was transferred to Gopalkata Free Primary School, but in making the order of transfer the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules framed under Section 66 (1) and 66 (2) of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 were not followed. Rule 7 requires : "no appointment or transfer of teachers shall be made by the Board except after considering a report of the District Inspector of Schools. "
(2.) IN the instant case, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, no report of the District Inspector of Schools was even made, far less that it was considered by the Board. Then again, the order of transfer was not made by the Board but was made by the president of the District School Board. The order by a President of a School Board is not order by the Board itself. This is clear from s. 18 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, which is to the following effect: "18 (1) All orders of the Board shall be carried into effect by the president in whom the entire executive power of the Board shall be vested and who shall be responsible for giving effect to such orders. (2) The President shall not exercise any power which by this Act is expressly declared to be exercisable by the Board. (3) The President may authorize the Vice-President by an order in writing to exercise any of the powers conferred on him to perform any of the duties imposed on the President by this Act and thereupon the responsibility of the President in respect of such powers and duties shall devolve upon the Vice-President during the continuance of such order. (4) When the office of President is vacant the Vice-President shall exercise the functions of the President until a new President is appointed. "
(3.) MR. Somendra Chandra Bose, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 did not argue that Rule 7 had been complied with in making the order of transfer of the petitioner. He, however, contended that Rule 7 was directory and not mandatory. I find no justification for upholding that contention. Power is vested in the Board, under the law, to do certain things. It cannot be delegated to only an officer the Board. Then again, there is a procedure prescribed for making orders of transfer. It may not be best for all concerned to give to the members of the Board liberty not to conform to the statutory procedure but to discover a procedure of their own.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.