WP(C) 4687/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. BD Das, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. C Dutta, Advoc ate, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Stand ing counsel, Education Department, Assam. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner is an Assista nt Teacher and he joined his service on 30.03.1995 in Gayangaon MV School, Majul i. Vide order dated 26.02.1997, he was transferred to Doria Uttar Kamalabari MV School, Majuli. While serving as such the service of the petitioner was attached at Dahatia MV School, Jorhat by an order dated 03.03.2010 and since then he is serving at Dahatia MV School, Jorhat. It is the further case of the petitioner t hat vide order dated 01.09.2011, the service of the petitioner has been reverted to his original place of posting i.e., Doria Uttar Kamalabari M.V. School, Maju li. As the petitioner has already purchased a plot of land at Jorhat and also co nstructed his house and his family members including his old ailing mother of 80 years are residing with him at Jorhat, the petitioner finds it difficult to go to Majuli again and, therefore, immediately after receipt of the order dated 01. 09.2011, the petitioner submitted representation on 06.09.2011 (Annexure-3 to th e writ petition) before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Ed ucation, (Elementary Department) (respondent No.1) and Director of Elementary Ed ucation, Assam, Kahilipara (respondent No.2). However, due to delay of disposal of the representation, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer fo r quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2011. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it has been stated on oath that Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Act 2009 (Act for short) has been adopted in Assam and in exercise o f powers conferred by Section 38 of the Act, the Govt. of Assam has made a set o f Rules namely The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 201 1 (for short, the Rules). The aforesaid Act and the Rules mandates for maintenan ce of Pupil Teachers Ratio (for short, PTR) at 1:30 for LP School and 1:35 for U pper Primary Schools and that every LP Schools shall have minimum two teachers. There are more than 7500 number of single teacher schools in the State of Assam at present contrary to the provision of minimum two teachers per School provided under the Act. There are also number of Schools where the PTR is not maintained . Further due to retirement of teachers and subsequent non-requirement of teache rs for last several years has led to further deterioration of the situation. The refore, to achieve the goal of the required PTR and to put additional teachers i n single teacher Schools and for providing adequate number of teachers for ensur ing quality education in the Schools, an Office Memorandum dated 25.08.2011 has been issued by the Govt. of Assam. The aforesaid Office Memorandum provides for constitution of District Level Committee (DLC for short) and the responsibility of maintenance of PTR and converting single teacher Schools to minimum double te achers Schools in the district has been entrusted upon the said DLC. The Office Memorandum also provides for strategy for achieving such goal, one of which is t ransfer/rationalization. Power of such transfer/rationalization is reposed upon the District Level Committee with due concurrence from the Finance Department. T he Office Memorandum also mandates for completion of such transfer/rationalizati on process within 90(ninety) days from the date of issuance of the Office Memora ndum. In pursuance of the Office Memorandum the impugned order dated 01.09.2011 came to be issued which would disclose that the order has been issued for larger interest of the pupil and to comply with the mandates of the Rules. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Standing counsel relying upon the statements made on oath in the affidavit-in-opposition has submitted that any order passed directing the authority not to revert back the petitioner to his original post w ould debar the authority from achieving the public goal as mandated by the Act a nd Rules as well as the aforesaid Office Memorandum. Mr. Saikia, further submits that in the meanwhile 18 Nos. of identically placed teacher (including the petitioner) in Majuli Sub-Division and by another Order dated 12.09.2011, the remaining 7 teachers, excluding the 11 teachers of the impugned order dated 01.09.2011 were also reverted to their original place o f posting with immediate effect. As such, all 18 teachers who were attached to o ther Schools than their original School of appointment were reverted vide orders dated 01.09.2011 and 12.09.2011. It has further been stated that if there remai n any left out teachers, they will also be immediately reverted back to their re spective original School. Therefore, any question of discrimination and favoriti sm in the aforesaid background does not arise at all. In view of the stand taken by the Department in their counter affidavit, Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that co nsidering the mandates of the Act and Rules as well as the Office Memorandum iss ued with a goal of achieving larger interest of the pupil, the petitioner does n ot like to pursue the case. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Mr. Das, has also submitted that the petitioner may be allowed sometime to join his original place of posting at Majuli. Considering the above submission, this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the petitioner atleast 7(seven) days time to join in the original place of posting i.e., at Majuli.