Transfer Cannot Be Justified If It Forces a Teacher to Teach Subject Beyond Qualification: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Arbitrary Posting Order

“Assigning a Subject Beyond a Teacher’s Qualification Is Punitive, Malicious in Law, and a Violation of Article 21-A” – Rajasthan High Court delivered a significant ruling under D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 459 of 2025, addressing the legality of a teacher’s transfer order that compelled her to teach English—a subject she was not academically qualified to teach. The Division Bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Sandeep Shah allowed the appeal, quashed the transfer order dated January 9, 2025, and underscored that such postings violate statutory service rules and the Right to Education under Article 21-A of the Constitution.

The appellant, Smt. Gauri, was appointed as a Teacher Grade-III on March 27, 2006, with no subject specified in her appointment order. She had pursued History and Economics as optional subjects during graduation and only had English as a compulsory subject. On this basis, she claimed eligibility to teach Social Science, not English.

Despite this, she was transferred on July 29, 2019, and again on January 9, 2025, to posts requiring her to teach English under Teacher Level-II. She challenged this second transfer in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2858/2025, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on February 4, 2025. Aggrieved, she filed a Special Appeal challenging the transfer as being arbitrary, punitive, and contrary to education service rules.

1. Whether the Transfer Order Violated Statutory Qualification Norms?

The central question was whether the appellant, lacking English as an optional subject, could be posted to teach it. The Court relied on:

• Guidelines dated February 16, 2016, by the Director of Primary Education, Bikaner, which clarified that subject eligibility is based on optional subjects studied during graduation.

• Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, and

• Schedule II of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 2021, both of which reiterate that only optional subjects qualify a candidate for subject-specific teaching posts.

“It is clear that as per the rules... she cannot be posted at a place where she is forced to teach a subject qua which she is not qualified.” [Para 16]

2. Was the Transfer Order Punitive in Nature?

Although transfer orders are administrative in nature, the Court observed that such an order becomes punitive and malicious in law if it results in adverse consequences or is passed without jurisdiction or contrary to law.

“...the impact of the order would be punitive in nature and having been passed with malice in law and could not have been passed in the guise of any administrative exigencies.” [Para 12]

3. Does the Posting Violate the Right to Education of Students Under Article 21-A?

The Court emphatically noted that posting unqualified teachers undermines students' rights to receive proper education, thus violating Article 21-A of the Constitution.

“The students will be denied the benefit of a qualified teacher... and that by itself would be a violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution.” [Para 16]

The Court meticulously examined the relevant education service rules and appointment advertisements:

• Advertisement dated December 16, 2022, clearly specified that teaching eligibility at Level-II (classes VI–VIII) must align with optional subjects studied in graduation.

• Rule 266 stipulates that for teaching English, the corresponding language must be an optional subject, not merely a compulsory one.

• Schedule II of the 2021 Rules also mandates that for Social Science teaching, at least two optional subjects like History, Geography, Political Science, Economics, etc., are required—criteria met by the appellant.

The Bench held: “Transfer order dated 9th January 2025 is illegal, contrary to law and rather amounts to fresh appointment to the appellant...” [Para 10]

It further acknowledged the civil and professional prejudice the teacher would face if compelled to teach a subject beyond her academic qualification.

Finally, the Court set aside both the Single Judge’s order dated February 4, 2025, and the transfer order dated January 9, 2025, directing the respondents to repost the appellant to a school where she may teach Social Science.

In a landmark affirmation of the principle that teacher qualifications must match subject-specific postings, the Rajasthan High Court held that an arbitrary and misaligned transfer cannot be cloaked under administrative discretion. The ruling reinforces the paramount importance of statutory rules and constitutional guarantees in education administration, both for the rights of the teacher and the students.

Date of Decision: 16 May 2025