Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha & Others on 27 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.20875, 20894, 21429, 21775,
21788, 22020, 22526, 22584, 23131, 23220,
23265, 23838, 23840, 23988, 23992, 24003,
30666, 30965, 30968, 30980, 31067, 31139,
31556 & 32197 of 2025
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
-------------
Ranjan Kumar Tripathy
[In W.P.(C) No.20875 of 2025]
Fakir Mahananda
[In W.P.(C) No.20894 of 2025]
Smt. Jyotirmayee Jena
[In W.P.(C) No.21429 of 2025]
Mrs. Namita Mishra
[In W.P.(C) No.21775 of 2025]
Prabhati Naik
[In W.P.(C) No.21788 of 2025]
Jhinilata Sethi
[In W.P.(C) No.22020 of 2025]
Sarat Chandra Nayak
[In W.P.(C) No.22526 of 2025]
Ranjan Kumar Mahala
[In W.P.(C) No.22584 of 2025]
Nirakar Panda
[In W.P.(C) No.23131 of 2025]
Page 1 of 17
Siva @ Siba Sankar Misra
[In W.P.(C) No.23220 of 2025]
Santosh Kumar Dakshinray
[In W.P.(C) No.23265 of 2025]
Sri Manas Kumar Giri
[In W.P.(C) No.23838 of 2025]
Manas Kumar Das
[In W.P.(C) No.23840 of 2025]
Narusu Sethy
[In W.P.(C) No.23988 of 2025]
Ranjan Kumar Sethy
[In W.P.(C) No.23992 of 2025]
Shankar Sethi
[In W.P.(C) No.24003 of 2025]
Swarnapriya Sahoo
[In W.P.(C) No.30666 of 2025]
Avimanyu Pani
[In W.P.(C) No.30965 of 2025]
Prasanna Kumar Behera
[In W.P.(C) No.30968 of 2025]
Swarnalata Behera
[In W.P.(C) No.30980 of 2025]
Sasmita Senapati
[In W.P.(C) No.31067 of 2025]
Ekadasi Behera
[In W.P.(C) No.31139 of 2025]
Page 2 of 17
Manaswini Hota
[In W.P.(C) No.31556 of 2025]
... Petitioners
Nirupama Sahoo
[In W.P.(C) No.32197 of 2025]
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
[In all WPs except W.P.(C) No.32197 of
2025]
Secretary to Govt., S & ME Department
& Others
... Opposite Parties
[In W.P.(C) No.32197 of 2025]
Advocates Appeared in these cases
For Petitioners - M/s.Kunal Ku. Swain, K. Swain &
J.R. Khuntia, Advocates in W.P.(C)
Nos.23838, 23840, 30965 & 30968 of
2025.
M/s.Sukanta Ku. Dalai, P. Swain,
S. Mahapatra, B. Bhuyan, J. Bhuyan &
S.K. Panda, Advocates in W.P.(C)
Nos.20875, 20894, 21788, 22020, 23220,
23988, 23992 & 24003 of 2025.
M/s.Durgesh Narayan Rath, A.K. Saa &
S.Das, Advocates in W.P.(C) Nos.22526,
22584, 23131 & 23265 of 2025.
M/s.Ramdas Achary, S.Das,
S. Srichandan & P.Agarwal, Advocates
in W.P.(C) Nos.30666 & 31067 of 2025.
Mr.Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate in
W.P.(C) Nos.30980 & 31139 of 2025
Page 3 of 17
M/s.Mohit Ku. Pati, M. Pati, S. Kar &
S.S. Pati, Advocates in W.P.(C)
No.32197 of 2025.
M/s. (Dr.) Purusottam Chuli, P.Nath &
P.Punyatoya, Advocates in W.P.(C)
No.21775 of 2025.
M/s.Sameer Ku. Das, P.K. Behera &
N.Jena, Advocates in W.P.(C) No.21429
of 2025.
M/s.Agasti Kanungo, C. Nayak,
N.K.Mishra & S. Sukla, Advocates in
W.P.(C) No.31556 of 2025.
For Opp. Parties - Mr.Saroj Ku. Jee,
Addl. Govt. Advocate in all W.Ps
M/s.R.R.Ray, N.K. Sen, P.K. Samal &
S.R. Mishra, Advocates for O.Ps.7 & 8
in W.P.(C) No.21429 of 2025.
M/s.K.K. Rout, S.K. Rout, S.K. Baral,
P.N.Pattnaik, T.S. Swaraj,
S. Sthitaprajna, S.Sahoo & S.K. Bhuyan,
Advocates for O.P.4 in W.P.(C) No.22020 of
2025.
------------
CORAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 24.11.2025 :: Date of judgment:27.11.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4 of 17
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
All these petitions, by a set of teachers, essentially seek to lay a
challenge to the transfer orders. A few of the petitions involve the transfer
orders that are put in challenge in the departmental appeals. Other few, call
in question the letter no. SME-GHS-GHS-0125-2021 dated 13.05.2025,
which provides for the MPs & MLAs recommending to the jurisdictional
authorities the cases of transfer.
2. Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners made the following
submissions in support of their cases:
(a) The impugned transfer orders are contrary to statutory Guidelines dated
14.05.2025, which regulates the transfer.
(b) The transfer Guidelines provides for decision making by the
Committee on normative basis and that the transfer orders are vitiated because
of political influence.
(c) The letter dated 13.05.2025, which enables the jurisdictional MPs &
MLAs to recommend teachers for transfer, is without authority of law and
otherwise also unsustainable.
(d) Some of the transfers have been effected purporting to be on the ground
of request, when no request is made at all; adding insult to the injury, these
transferees are denied transfer allowances.
In support of these submissions, the advocates relied upon certain rulings.
3. Learned Addl. Government Advocates-Mr. Jee & Lenka resisted the
petitions mainly on the following grounds:
(a) All public servants, regardless of transfer guidelines, are liable to be
transferred during their service on administrative grounds. All teachers, being
public servants, cannot seek exemption from transfer.
(b) There is a provision for departmental appeal against the transfer orders
and the same being efficacious, petitioners who have directly approached the
Writ Court, should be relegated to the appellate authorities. Those who have
already appealed, should have their petitions dismissed, pending adjudication
of the said appeals.
(c) The transfer Guidelines are merely directory provisions and therefore,
their violation per se would not give a choate cause of action for maintaining
the Writ Petitions, especially when departmental remedy being available
under the very same Guidelines.
(d) The impugned letter dated 13.05.2025 is in the nature of Executive
Instructions to enable MPs & MLAs to recommend for transfer of teachers,
since they know the local requirement; even otherwise, their recommendation
is subject to other norms laid down in the very same letter, ultimate decision
being taken by Transfer Committee.
(e) The transfers have been made essentially on the recommendation of the
Transfer Committee, and that the recommendations made by MPs/MLAs are
only an input, while decision making. In any event, the teachers cannot cling
on to the very same schools for years and their inter-change between one
school and another would serve administrative exigency.
Learned AGAs also pressed into service certain rulings in support of their
stand.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as
under and for the following reasons:
4.1. The scope & nature of transfer Guidelines:
(i) There are two sets of transfer Guidelines both dated 14.05.2025
promulgated by the State Government, and that they have been published in
the Gazette Notifications. There is no dispute at the Bar that these Guidelines
have been promulgated inter alia under the provisions of Sections 19 & 25
read with the Schedule to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. Therefore, these Guidelines are not just Executive
Instructions, but do enjoy statutory force. They prescribe the mode &
modalities for transfer of teachers. Where a power is given to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and
that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden said Taylor v.
Taylor1. Therefore, the wide proposition of learned AGAs that no civil
servant is exempt from transfer, is not applicable to the case at hand, stricto
sensu. In other words, teachers are also transferable, but only in
accordance with the transfer Guidelines. Mr. Jee‟s reliance on Mrs. Shilpi
Bose v. State of Bihar2, discussing about sweeping power of transfer,
would not come to the rescue of OPs, inasmuch as the said case involved
Executive Instructions, as distinguished from the statutory ones at hands.
(ii) The transfer Guidelines constitute the Transfer Committee for
effecting transfers, in the light of parameters prescribed by these
Guidelines. The Committee takes institutional decisions after verifying list
of eligible candidates prepared through computer based programme
keeping in view the grounds for transfer. The decision would be conveyed
by the Director of Elementary Education by issuing orders. These transfers
may be inter-district or intra-district, depending upon the parameters
prescribed by the Guidelines. Once the order is issued, the Collector
concerned will give place of posting. Only thereafter, the District
Education Officer (DEO) shall relieve the teacher concerned, in the case of
inter-district transfer. In respect of transferred Junior Teachers, it is DPC
that issues relieving orders. No sooner this is done, the transferee shall
submit duty report at the new place. What one has to keep in mind is that
disruption of imparting lessons to the pupils will have far reaching
consequences and therefore, the provision for relieving & reporting has to
be scrupulously followed.
1875 LR 1 ChD 426
AIR 1991 SC 532
(iii) The transfer Guidelines specify that the transfer exercise can be
undertaken during the period between 16th of April and 10th of June. This
is obviously to ensure that no hardship would be occasioned to any
educational institution which will be in the lull during interregnum between
the final examinations and admissions, which ordinarily would be during
the said period. One cannot overlook that there may be cases warranting
transfer even after the said period. However, the authority for effecting the
same is specified. In few of petitions, it is other than the competent
authorities who have issued the impugned transfers, though they are
beyond the specified period. An order without jurisdiction is a nullity and
this applies to such orders, as rightly submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners.
4.2. Teachers of Government School versus other civil servants:
(i) All teachers in Govt. Schools are civil servants, but all civil servants
are not teachers. Broadly speaking, the nature & scope of their jobs differ.
Without civil servants, arguably, governance could not run. Without
teachers, new generation cannot be rightly brought up. It is the teachers
who shape the civilization by inculcating values for social organization &
development. To wipe out a nation from the world map, no atom bomb is
necessary; if standard of teaching is diminished, that would happen before
long. That is why our scriptures say „Gurubhyonamah‟, literally meaning
„salutation to the teacher‟. In the matter of transfer, even the Guidelines
applicable to the teachers of Govt. Schools are different from those for the
other civil servants. The arguable similarities in the set of these Guidelines
will not diminish the difference between these two separate classes. In the
matter of transfer relating to other civil servants, true it is, the elected
representatives like MLAs & MPs can have their say. This view gains
support from Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P.3. The Division
Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in Sri S.Venkateshappa v. State
of Karnataka4 disposed off on 22.08.2025 proceeds on the same line of
reasoning.
(ii) One has to keep in mind as to why the Transfer Committee
comprising of high officials is constituted for recommending transfer of
teachers. It is not without any reason. Purity in the realm of academics &
the educational institutions has to be maintained. Academic freedom as
individual freedom of the teacher, is a projection of ideological and the
right to freely disseminate the thoughts, ideas & options of teachers in the
exercise of its function, observed the Constitutional Court of Spain5.
Political interference or affinity in the campus is not desirable in general
and in the matters of transfer of teachers, in particular. An argument to the
contrary will have pollution-potential. What is dismaying is the functional
nature of impugned letter dated 13.05.2025 which precedes promulgation
of transfer Guidelines. The said letter provides for MPs/MLAs
recommending transfer of teachers, of course, subject to certain norms &
restrictions. Nothing has been stated in the said letter as to under what
authority it has been issued, to claim legal efficacy. Added, this letter
(2007) 8 SCC 150
W.P. No. 3612 of 2025 (S-KSAT).
AUTO 42/1992, FJ 2
earlier in time is subsumed in the statutory transfer Guidelines that came a
day after. Despite repeated questioning, learned AGAs, with all jugglery of
words, were not in a position to point out any provision of statute under
which the same has been issued. Assuming that it purports to have been
issued in exercise of Executive Power of the State under Article 162 of the
Constitution, it does not have any trappings of Government Order in terms
of Article 166, which prescribes the format. No jurisprudential nor
administrative justification is demonstrated. Added, the statutory transfer
Guidelines, by virtue of their policy content, do not accommodate the
content & intent of this letter. Lastly, a copy of the Executive Decision or
its material particulars, on which the letter is structured, is conspicuously
absent. The said letter has been issued by the Joint Secretary to
Government to the Director of Secondary Education & Director of
Elementary Education.
4.3. Likely consequences of impugned letter dated 13.05.2025:
(i) Section 159 of Representation of People Act, 1951 provides for
taking inter alia teachers of Government Schools, like the petitioners
herein, for election duties. The same reads as under:
"159. Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election
work.--(1) The authorities specified in sub-section (2) shall, when so
requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under clause (4)
of article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available
to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the
performance of any duties in connection with an election.
(2) The following shall be the authorities for the purposes of sub-
section (1), namely:--
(i) every local authority;
(ii) every university established or incorporated by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act;
(iii) a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies
Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iv) any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established
by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or
financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or
indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government."
Section 27 of 2009 Act is in the nature of addendum to the aforesaid
provision of 1951 Act. The same has the following text:
"27. Prohibition of deployment of teachers for non-educational
purposes.--No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational
purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief
duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State
Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be."
(ii) It is a matter of common knowledge that in a vibrant democracy like
ours, the period elections are held to the Parliament & State Legislatures, as
festival of lights. For the conduct of elections and their preparatory works,
services of teachers too are requisitioned. Impugned letter of the kind,
which provides for MPs/MLAs recommending transfer of teachers, has the
potential of creating a seamless nexus between the political parties/
candidates and the community of teachers. This would not augur well to
the system. One needs no research to visualize the fruits of poisonous tree
that would grow on the soil of such nexus. It is teachers, more particularly
those who teach up to the level of HSC/X Standard, who mould the
younger generation as citizenry in the making. As of necessity, teachers
have to maintain safe distance from political parties & elected
representatives. Political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) of New
York in her essay "The Crisis in Education" (1958) said "Education can
play no part in politics, because in politics we always have to deal with
those who are already educated." Mr. Willard E. Givens writes "everyone
will agree that our schools can serve our society best if kept free from
partisan politics. Separation of education from general municipal
government is helpful in doing that. There is no other public service where
partisan interference is more disastrous than in education. The actual
work of the schools transcends partisan considerations. Science knows
nothing of republican chemistry, democratic astronomy, or socialistic
physiology. Even in the more controversial social studies, there are facts
and trends, the truth of which is not subject to partisan interpretation."6
4.4. As to impugned letter dated 13.05.2025 being an extraneous
consideration:
(i) As already mentioned, the letter of Joint Secretary dated 13.05.2025
being liable to be completely ignored, the Transfer Committee should have
undertaken the proposals for transfer of teachers within the parameters
prescribed in the statutory transfer Guidelines. However, a perusal of
several impugned orders herein unmistakably demonstrate that not only the
recommendation of MPs/MLAs were considered, but these Committees
were unjustifiably swayed away by such recommendation. In any
circumstance, this letter could not have factored in the decision making of
transfers.
. Willard E. Givens (Executive Secretary, National Education Association), „Shall School Systems Be
Independent of Other Government Agencies?. Available at: School Life, Official Journal of the U.S
Office of Education, Vol. XXV.
(ii) The vehement contention of learned AGAs that the impugned letter
in question is only recommendatory and that it does not bind the Transfer
Committee while making decisions, appears attractive at the first blush.
However, its worth is robbed off on deeper examination. In several
impugned orders, the decision is stated to have been taken by the
Committee only on the recommendation of MPs/MLAs. These decisions
do not mention about the parameters discernable from the transfer
Guidelines. It hardly needs to be stated about the enormity of influence
such recommendations of MPs/MLAs would cast on the officials, who
happen to be the members of Transfer Committee. Cases are replete
wherein recommendations of the kind are virtually treated as commands.
Therefore, the transfer orders which are structured inter alia on such
recommendations, are to be treated as having been made on extraneous
considerations and consequently are liable to be invalidated.
4.5. As to availability of remedy of departmental appeals:
(i) In most of these petitions, appeal could have been filed before the
competent authorities and therefore, petitioners should be relegated to the
said remedy, was the contention of learned AGAs. This is bit difficult to
countenance, inasmuch as an order without jurisdiction can be examined by
the Writ Court even when alternate remedy is available. After all, the
doctrine of alternate remedy cannot be treated as Great Wall of China that
would prevent entry of worthy litigants to the portals of Writ Court. This
apart, judicial opinions galore on the proposition that certiorari proceedings
are an exception to the said doctrine. It is also told at the Bar that in four of
the cases, namely, WP(C) Nos. 20875, 22584, 23131 & 23265 of 2025
statutory appeals are pending. Suffice it to say that such appeals should be
disposed off forthwith in the light of this judgment.
(ii) Added to the above, the contended alternate remedy cannot be said
to be efficacious in the light of recommendations made by MPs/MLAs.
Not even one sample case is cited before the Court wherein despite such
recommendation either the Transfer Committee has taken a different view
or the appellate authority has dared to do it. Constitutional courts cannot
send back a worthy cause, which can be otherwise treated on merits on the
material available on record. The impugned orders do not indicate the
availability of appeal remedy, so that the poor teachers could have availed,
even otherwise. The evolving norms of administrative law require the
statutory authorities to indicate in their decisions as to the appealability,
appellate authority & the limitation period for appeal. After all, a plea of
alternate remedy cannot be mindlessly chanted like mantra to deny justice
to the worthy litigant.
4.6. The last submission of learned advocates appearing for the
petitioners that some of the transfer orders have been made by the
Committee on the ground of mutuality, when no request was made, is also
substantiated by the material on record. No counter has been filed by the
State. Even otherwise, no file is produced to show that any request was
made for mutual transfers. There is something like adding insult to the
injury: The transfer allowance is denied on the ground that it was made on
mutual request, even when there was no such request at all. Conversely,
even when mutual requests are made, the same have not been favoured. No
reasons are assigned for such mindless denial of mutual transfer.
4.7. All the above being said, there is force in the submission of learned
AGAs Mr. Jee & Lenka that even if the transfer orders are set aside, those
teachers who have reported for duty at the transferred places, should
continue till after the expiry of academic year, so that the community of
students is not put to prejudice. The Court has to keep in view the interest
of the pupils above that of the teachers. No prejudice would be caused to
anyone, if the course suggested by the learned AGAs is accepted. However,
such of the petitioners should be restored to their original places wherein
they were working before the issuance of impugned orders, within one
week following the expiry of academic year 2025-26. Any delay in this
regard would be viewed very seriously in the next level of the legal battle.
In the above circumstances, all these petitions are allowed with the
following directions:
(i) A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned letter no. SME-
GHS-GHS-0125-2021 dated 13.05.2025 and the impugned transfer
orders, as well.
(ii) A Writ of Mandamus issues to continue the petitioners in the same
places in which they were respectively working before the issuance
of impugned transfer orders, subject to what has been stated in
paragraph 4.7 above.
(iii) A Writ of Mandamus also issues to dispose off all departmental
appeals in the light of this judgment within an outer limit of four
weeks. Delay shall be viewed very seriously.
This judgment shall not come in the way of fresh transfer process
being undertaken in terms of extant transfer Guidelines, keeping in view
the observations made therein and in that connection contentions are kept
open.
No costs.
Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 27th day of November, 2025/GDS
Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 27-Nov-2025 16:24:08
