The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that writs of quo warranto cannot be used to challenge transfer or posting orders in service matters, and further emphasized the non-maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in service-related disputes. This decision upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for similar cases within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA(P)/146/2023 of RANAJIT SARKAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0157272023 |
| Date of Registration | 29-03-2023 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author |
HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench |
HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms previous decisions (including WPA(P) 535 of 2022, MAT 469 of 2020) |
| Type of Law |
Service Law Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued to disturb or nullify a transfer order or a posting that is based on a transfer order. The Court also reiterated that PILs in service matters are not maintainable, referencing prior decisions of the Court. The transfer order in the instant case was passed pursuant to a Government Order and not under the Transfer Rule of 2015, which provided an independent ground for declining interference. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WPA(P) 535 of 2022 (Priyanka Dubey Tiwari vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), MAT 469 of 2020 and connected matters |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Previous orders of the Calcutta High Court holding that PILs are not maintainable in service matters; established scope of writ of quo warranto. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the appointment of a headmaster on the ground of an ineligible transfer, contending that the minimum required service of five years had not been served. The petitioner filed a PIL seeking a writ of quo warranto to nullify the transfer and posting. Respondents objected to the maintainability of the PIL and the scope of writ remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, if cited for the scope of PILs in service matters and limitations of writ of quo warranto |
| Overrules | None; rather, it affirms previous decisions |
| Distinguishes | None specifically |
| Follows | WPA(P) 535 of 2022 (Priyanka Dubey Tiwari vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), MAT 469 of 2020 and related matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that writ of quo warranto cannot be used to challenge or interfere with transfer and posting orders in service matters.
- Affirms that PILs in service matters are not maintainable; only the aggrieved person may seek remedy through appropriate proceedings.
- No quarrel was noted regarding the eligibility or qualification of the transferee; the focal point was the scope of judicial review regarding transfer orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the maintainability of a writ of quo warranto in the context of a transfer/posting in service matters.
- The Court accepted the respondents’ arguments that such writs cannot be used to question or disturb transfer or posting orders.
- It was emphasized that there was no challenge to the eligibility or qualification of the transferee as headmaster, only to the transfer process itself.
- The bench noted that the impugned transfer was made under a specific Government Order, not under the Transfer Rule of 2015 cited by the petitioner, thereby making interference unwarranted.
- The Court cited prior Calcutta High Court decisions (WPA(P) 535 of 2022, MAT 469 of 2020) holding that PILs in service matters are not maintainable, and followed this established jurisprudence.
- The Court found no merit to entertain the PIL and dismissed the petition at the admission stage.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the private respondent’s transfer and appointment as headmaster was in violation of the Transfer Rules, 2015, as he did not render the minimum five years of service in the previous school.
- Prayed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to nullify the respondent’s transfer and current position.
Respondents (State and Private Respondent)
- Objected to the maintainability of the PIL in service matters.
- Argued that a writ of quo warranto is not available for challenging transfer or posting orders.
- Emphasized that there was no issue regarding the private respondent’s eligibility or qualification for the post.
- Cited previous Calcutta High Court decisions prohibiting PILs in service matters.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of quo warranto against a private respondent who was transferred and posted as a headmaster. The core challenge was that the transferee had not completed the minimum five years’ service required for such a transfer under the Transfer Rules, 2015. The respondents highlighted that the transfer was executed under a different Government Order, not the 2015 Rules. The case was heard at the stage of admission.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed the scope of transfer orders in service matters and the applicability of the Transfer Rules, 2015.
- It clarified that the challenged transfer was made under Government Order No. 633-SL/5S-358/19 dated 16th October 2020, and not under the Transfer Rule of 2015.
- The statutory scope of writ of quo warranto was discussed, with the Court clarifying its limited applicability—specifically, not as a tool to challenge service transfers or postings where eligibility and qualification for the post are not in question.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed established precedent disclaiming maintainability of PILs in service matters and clarifying the non-applicability of writ of quo warranto to transfer/posting orders.