Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The dispute under the writ petition is with regard to mutual transfer amongst the petitioner and another in between two schools. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although she was released from the post of the Assistant Teacher of one School in favour of the transferee who, in turn joined in the present School but the petitioner was disallowed by the Managing Committee of the school where she transferred. The main object of the Managing Committee of the School in disallowing her is that there is no provision of transfer under the Rules for teachers from one School to other. If the law permits they have no objection.
(2.) I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both the contesting parties. It appears from the annexures to the writ petition that a Single Judge of this Court was pleased to direct the Director of School Education of West Bengal to consider the representation of the petitioner under the order dated 10th December, 1990 in C.O. No. 7071 (W) of 1987 (Smt. Krishna Das v. State of West Bengal). In compliance with such order the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) North 24-Paraganas produced all such papers to the Director of School Education. Report was also furnished in respect of existing vacancy in the transferee school. Ultimately, Director of School Education West Bengal under memorandum dated 1st November, 1991 approved the mutual transfer. By a further memorandum dated 4th November, 1991 the District Inspector of Schools issued the order of transfer to the petitioner from the erstwhile School to this School. No challenge was made by the contesting respondent challenging both the departmental orders. Therefore, there is no embargo of transfer. Both the petitioners faced precarious condition when she was not allowed to join in the school inspite of such approval.
(3.) The stand of the respondent is that since there is no provision under the Rule available they are not bound by the order passed under the governmental order nor can be regarded as a valid stand either for the sake of law or for the sake of equity.;