WP(C) 3455/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for t he respondents. The petitioner who was appointed as L.P. School teacher w.e.f. 1.6.1995, claimed to have been posted at various L.P. School in Char/Riverine areas upto 2003. The petitioner was posted at No. 1282 Bhogdia L.P. School in April, 2010 b y a common order dated 14.5.2010 issued by the Block Elementary Education Office r (BEEO), Chenga Block. The petitioner and three (3) others were assigned only a nd allowed to teach in the schools shown against their names. By the aforesaid o rder, the petitioner was assigned and permitted to take classes at 1168 No. Dakh in Barmara L.P. School which is situated within a radius 3 or 4 kms from the res idence of the petitioner. Without any notice, another order dated 18.5.2010 was issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Chenga Block, staying the afor esaid order dated 14.5.2010, within a period of four (4) days from the date of i ssuance of the earlier common order, apparently on the basis of a letter issued by the MLA of the area which is reflected in the impugned order dated 18.5.2010. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court by an or der dated 18.6.2010 directed the respondents to maintain status-quo in respect o f the transfer and attachment of the petitioner. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, has fi led an affidavit on behalf of the Director of Elementary Education, wherein it i s stated that pursuant to order dated 26.5.2010 passed by this Court, status-quo has been maintained by an order dated 1.7.2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector o f Schools, Barpeta, a copy of which is placed by the learned Standing Counsel be fore the Court. As directed by this Court, Mr. Khataniar has produced the releva nt record but he submits that the MLA’s letter referred in the impugned order is not available in the government file. It appears that the letter which has, per haps, caused the issuance of the impugned order has been taken out from the file , otherwise, it is supposed to form a part of the record as the same is reflecte d in the impugned order. Be that as it may, teachers of L.P. Schools, except in compelling circum stances, are expected from nearby the school so that they can attend the school regularly and take care of the little kids attending the school. In the present case, the petitioner has been assigned duty to teach in a school which is about 80 kms away from his residence. Unless there is compelling reason, such arrangem ent of teaching and posting should not be normally be disturbed. In case there i s any complaint against the petitioner with regard to his conduct as L.P. School teacher, complaint should be enquired into by giving notice to the petitioner a nd the file produced before the Court does not show that any enquiry was held be fore issuing the impugned order. Thus the plea of complaint against the petition er; taken by the respondent is not acceptable. That apart, the impugned order is not a transfer order between two teachers but only one way transfer. Having considered the facts and circumstances as stated above, the impug ned order dated 18.5.2010 and order dated 26.5.2010 are hereby quashed.