Anindita Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Anindita Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned Single Bench order was modified: the portion directing transfer was set aside, and the Block Development Officer, Barrackpore Circle was directed to enquire into the alleged financial embezzlement in the midday meal scheme after affording an opportunity of hearing to all respective parties, in accordance with law. FMA 1024 of 2024 and CAN 1 of 2024 were disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct transfer of a teacher from one school to another, a matter lying within the domain of the administrative authorities. +2 more

Court's answer

The power of the High Court under Article 226 extends to testing whether the process of a decision taken by administrative authorities withstands constitutional and statutory provisions, and not to the decision itself; the Court should avoid usurping the powers of administrative authorities, having regard to the separation of powers among the three limbs of the Constitution.

Ratio / Principle

The writ Court should not pass an order which is neither prayed for nor supported by any pleading averred in the petition.

Key takeaways

The Court should not exercise its power under Article 226 to direct transfer of a teacher from one school to another, as that falls within the domain of the administrative authorities; the moment the writ Court substitutes itself into the armchair of the administrative officer, it offends the core value of separation of powers envisioned by the law-makers.ratio¶5
The Division Bench set aside the portion of the impugned order by which the transfer was directed to be effected.ratio¶6
In view of the serious allegation of financial embezzlement in the midday meal scheme levelled by the appellant/petitioner, the Block Development Officer, Barrackpore Circle is to make an enquiry into the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to all respective parties, in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 226 — Judicial review — Separation of powers — Writ court's role confined to testing the process of administrative decisions against constitutional and statutory provisions, not the decision itself; it must not usurp administrative functions or grant reliefs neither prayed for nor pleaded. Held, the writ court cannot direct transfer of a teacher from one school to another, transfer being within the domain of administrative authorities; substitution by the writ court offends the core value of separation of powers. The portion of the Single Bench order directing transfer was set aside. Since a serious allegation of financial embezzlement in the midday meal scheme was levelled by the appellant (Head Teacher of Kamalapur Adarsha Vidyaniketan, Shyamnagar Circle), the Block Development Officer, Barrackpore Circle was directed to hold an enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to all respective parties, in accordance with law. Impugned order modified to that extent; FMA 1024 of 2024 and CAN 1 of 2024 disposed of.

0701 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

TUESDAY

Court : 08 Item : DL-39 Matter : FMA Status : DO Bench ID : 266048 Transcriber : NANDY

FMA 1024 OF 2024

(MAT 1523 OF 2024)

with CAN 1 OF 2024

ANINDITA GHOSH Vs.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS..

MR. VICTOR CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE MR. BARNAMOY BASAK, ADVOCATE

……for the Appellant

MR. BHASKAR PRASAD VAISYA, LD AGP MR. PINAKI BHATTACHARYA, ADVOCATE

……for the DPSC, North 24-Parganas MR. SUPRIYO CHATTOPADHYAY, ADVOCATE MR. SABYASACHI MONDAL, ADVOCATE

……for the State

It is no longer res integra that the power exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to see that the process of a decision taken by the administrative authorities can withstand on the anvil of the Constitutional as well as the statutory provisions and not concerned with the decision taken by the administrative authorities. The Court should avoid usurping the powers of the administrative authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is a separation of powers in the three limbs envisaged in the Constitution which is apparent though at times become blurred which is always regarded as an exception.

The writ Court shall deal with the matter agitated by a litigant and to decide whether the reliefs claimed therein comes within the peripheral of the powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but should not take up the responsibility of the

2

administration who is the best authority to take a decision in managing the affairs for which it is created. The Court should not pass an order which is neither prayed for nor any pleading in support thereof, is averred in the petition.

Reverting to the facts of the case, the appellant/ petitioner being the Head Teacher of Kamalapur Adarsha Vidyaniketan, Shyamnagar Circle, approached the Court, raising a grievance before the DPSC, North 24-Parganas with regard to the conduct, the demeanour of the private respondent i ncluding his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

On the basis of the complaint, District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, intervened but did not find any irregularities in the appointment of the private respondent. Since the allegation of insubordination and financial embezzlement in the mid-day meal scheme was flagged by the appellant /petitioner, the Single Bench was of the view that because of such acrimony between the appellant and the private respondent, it is desirable that the private respondent should be transferred to any other School situated near to her residence with clarification that such transfer should not be treated as penal.

The Court should not exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in directing transfer of a teacher from one School to another, as it comes within the domain of the administrative authorities. The moment the writ Court substitutes itself into the armchair of the administrative officer, it would offend the core value of the separation of powers envisioned by the law-makers.

3

We thus set aside the portion of the order by which the transfer of the appellant/petitioner was directed to be effected,.

So far as the direction upon the Block Development Officer, Barrackpore Circle, is concerned, since a serious allegation of financial embezzlement in the midday meal scheme is leveled by the appellant/ petitioner, such authority would make an enquiry into the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, in accordance with law.

The order impugned is thus modified to the extent as above.

The appeal being FMA 1024 of 2024 and the connected application being CAN 1 of 2024 are accordingly disposed of.

(HARISH TANDON, J.)

(PRASENJIT BISWAS, J)