On a reading of the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2016 and, specially Clause 3(2) thereof, on which reliance is placed by the counsel on both the sides for advancing their respective cases, it appears that the Education Officer was not justified in refusing to grant approval to the transfer of the petitioner from the respondent no.5-school to the respondent no.4school. Except a few classes, all the other classes in the respondent no.5-school were brought on grant-in-aid even before the petitioner joined his duties as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.5school. In the year 2013, when the petitioner joined his duties in the respondent no.5-school, the classes for which the petitioner was appointed were not brought on grant-in-aid. In 2014, the classes which the petitioner was teaching were however brought on partial grant-in-aid. If that is so, it cannot be said that Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2016 would clearly apply to the case of the petitioner as it cannot be said that the petitioner was transferred from a non grant-in-aid school to a grant-in-aid school. Most of the classes in the respondent no.5-school were brought on grant-in-aid even before the appointment of the petitioner and the classes for which the petitioner was appointed were also brought on partial grant-in-aid in the year 2014. In this background, Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2016 would not apply and it would not be permissible for the Education Officer to reject the proposal of the petitioner solely on the basis that surplus teachers were available for grant-in-aid schools. Since it appears that the petitioner's services were approved in the year 2013 and in the year 2015, he was granted approval on regular basis, it would be necessary for the Education Officer to grant approval to the transfer of the petitioner from the respondent no.5-school to the respondent no.4-school.
