WP(C) 1354/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr KK Mahanta, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms B Hazari ka, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr AD Choudhury, the lear ned Standing Counsel, Education Department for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Ms B Chou dhury, the learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 and Mr BD Goswami, the le arned counsel for respondent No. 6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.02.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2 transferring the petitioner, who is a Classical Teacher ((Sanskrit), from Pillingkata High School, Kamrup to Jharobari Anchalik Girls’ High School, Bijoynagar, Kamrup vice Usharani Das and at the same time declaring that he could not claim seniority over the existing staff of Jharobari Anchalik Girls’ High School as per Service Rules, 2003. The school is a provincialised school and the service of the petitioner was also provincialised along with ten other staff. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is malafide, made at the behest of respondent No. 5 who has personal grudge against him without any apparent reason. It is also stated by the petitioner that ther e are sufficient numbers of students who wanted to opt for Sanskrit subject but they were not allowed to do so or otherwise discouraged by the respondent No. 5. However, the request made by the respondent No. 5 from time to time for taking up a subject other than Sanskrit, were duly honoured by him. Therefore, the all egation of the respondent No. 5 that the petitioner did not want to teach any su bject other than Sanskrit is false. It is therefore, contended that the tran sfer order was passed just to harass him. The other contention of the petitione r is that the impugned order depriving him of his seniority over the existing s taff of Jharobari Anchalik Girls’ High School, Bijoynagar, Kamrup, where he has been transferred, is not only illegal but is also punitive in nature which warra nts the inference of malafide. The writ petition is opposed by the Education De partment as well as the Headmistress of the school, who is also personally imple aded as respondent No. 5. The President of the Managing Committee of the School also resisted the writ petition. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by her is o n record. Mr KK Mahanta, the learned senior counsel strenuously submits that the f act that the petitioner had been deprived of his claim of seniority over the exi sting staff of the school to which he has been transferred is a clear indication that the impugned transfer order is malafide. It is also his contention that t he petitioner has been time and again threatened by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as well as the respondent No. 6 that this post would be abolished from the schoo l and that the attitude of the respondent No. 5 towards him turned for the words when he apprised the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup, who had visited the school o n inspection in the presence of all the staff members of the school about the di fficulties he was facing in teaching Sanskrit as a subject in the school and sin ce then she had been showing hostile attitude to the petitioner. According to t he learned senior counsel with a view to settle the personal score with him, the respondents No. 4 and 5 made a complaint to the respondent No. 2 for transferri ng him from Pillingkata High School, Kamrup, to some other school by way of puni shment. Contending that the transfer order is ex facie malafide, the learned cou nsel submits that the impugned order of transfer should be quashed. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.08.2011, this Court had asked the learned Standing Counsel, Education Department to produce the file relating to the transfer order. The file is now produced before this Court. I have peru sed the file to examine the correctness of the allegations made by the petitione r in this writ petition. The letter of the Headmistress dated 24.02.2011 addres sed to the respondent No. 2 indicates that the transfer was proposed by the resp ondent No. 5 on the ground that there was no students of Sanskri in the school e ver since the inception of the school and that her request to the petitioner to teach Assamese subject had flatly refused by the petitioner, as he maintained th at he was a Sanskrit teacher. No other allegation is made by the respondent No. 5 against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I find it difficult to acce pt the contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is actuated by malice. In so far as the second limb of submission of the petitioner that t he impugned order is punitive in nature and that the petitioner is being deprive d of his seniority over the existing staff of the school to which he has been tr ansferred, the learned Standing counsel for Education Department, on instruction , concedes that the order cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as the transfer or der was not done at the request of the petitioner. In view of this submission o f the learned Standing counsel for Education Department, it is not necessary to elaborately discuss on this issue. That apart, I have read and re-read this par t of the transfer order and am of the opinion that the petitioner, whose transfe r was not effected at his own request, cannot be deprived of his seniority where he has been transferred. To this extent, the impugned order is illegal. In th e result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The second part of the impugned order stating that the petitioner cannot claim his seniority over the existing staff of Jharobari Anchalik Girls’ High School as per the Service Rule 2003, is hereby quashed. The remaining part of the order shall remain unchanged. The interim order dated 09.03.2011 stands vacated. No costs.