The Calcutta High Court sets aside orders issued by the Secretary and Secretary-in-Charge of the Commission, holding that only the Chairman was authorised to decide the petitioner’s transfer application as per prior court order. This judgment reaffirms the importance of following explicit judicial and statutory directions on decision-making authority in public employment and will serve as binding precedent within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/17442/2025 of PARTHA SARATHI SEN Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0354792025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Court No. 18) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court (single bench) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the necessity of compliance with direction regarding competent authority in administrative decisions |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Calcutta High Court held that when the court expressly directs a particular authority (here, the Chairman of the Commission) to decide a service transfer application, the Secretary is not authorised to make such a decision. Any order passed without authority is liable to be set aside. In consequence, the impugned memo dated 2nd April, 2025 was quashed, as was the subsequent memo dated 26th May, 2025. The Chairman is directed to consider the petitioner’s transfer application afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing and disclosing relevant vacancies. Orders must be passed within four weeks and communicated promptly thereafter. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged a memo dated 2nd April, 2025 issued by the Secretary, WBCSSC rejecting his transfer application on the ground that there was no vacancy. The court found that only the Chairman—as earlier directed—was competent to decide the application. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court based its findings on the requirement that administrative decisions follow both statutory prescriptions and explicit court orders regarding the competent authority. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities under the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with questions of competence and authority in administrative/service decisions. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that compliance with prior judicial directions about which administrative authority is competent is mandatory; orders issued by unauthorised officials are invalid.
- Clarifies procedural protections: transfer decisions must be rendered by the designated person (here, Chairman) and must grant the applicant an opportunity of hearing and relevant disclosures.
- Lawyers can cite this ruling to challenge administrative or service decisions taken by unauthorised or improperly delegated officials, especially where explicit judicial or statutory directions exist regarding the competent authority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinised whether the Secretary of WBCSSC was competent to decide the petitioner’s transfer application, noting that an earlier order had specifically directed the Chairman to take the decision.
- Upon finding that the Secretary’s decision was unauthorised, the Court quashed both the initial and consequential memos stemming from that unauthorised decision.
- The Court reaffirmed the principle that where a judicial order assigns a duty to a particular authority, any decision by another official who lacks such delegated authority is invalid.
- The Court directed the Chairman to rehear the petitioner, provide necessary information about vacancies, and issue a reasoned order within a defined timeline, emphasising procedural fairness and the importance of following judicial directions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Contended that, per prior High Court order, only the Chairman of the Commission was empowered to decide on the transfer application.
- Submitted that decision by the Secretary (instead of the Chairman) was unauthorised and invalid.
- Sought setting aside of memos rejecting his transfer application on this ground.
Factual Background
The petitioner submitted a transfer application to the WBCSSC, indicating preference for transfer either to Dabri SSB High School (HS), Bankura, or any other school near his residence. The Secretary of the Commission rejected the application via a memo dated 2nd April, 2025, citing a lack of vacancy in the preferred school. However, per a previous High Court order dated 11th December, 2024, the Chairman—not the Secretary—was to decide the transfer matter. The petitioner thus challenged the Secretary’s memo and its subsequent confirmation.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment addresses principles of administrative law governing delegation and the competence of public officials to make decisions, especially when courts have directed that a particular officer must decide a matter.
- The Court mandates strict compliance with judicial orders on the identity of the decision-making official in service matters.
- No specific statutory section is interpreted or discussed in detail in the provided text.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment requires that the Chairman personally hear the petitioner, disclose nearby vacancies, and pass a fresh order within four weeks, with prompt communication thereafter.
- Reasserts that only properly authorised officials may act, particularly when courts have prescribed the decision-maker.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established principles on authority, competence, and judicial directions in administrative decision-making.