Calcutta High Court
WPA(P)/476/2026 of LEGAL RIGHTS PROTECTION ORGANIZATION (LRPO) Vs THE DIRSTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, JALPAIGURI AND ORS on 8 October 2026
Ct. No.1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. (P) 476 of 2026 Legal Rights Protection Organization (LRPO) Versus The District Primary School Council, Jalpaiguri & Ors. Appearance: Mr. Atindra Chowdhury ….. Petitioner (In Person) Mr.
WBCHCA0509652026
Item No.11
Ct. No.1
KS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P.A. (P) 476 of 2026
Legal Rights Protection Organization (LRPO)
Versus
The District Primary School Council, Jalpaiguri & Ors.
Appearance:
Mr. Atindra Chowdhury
….. Petitioner (In Person)
Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P.
Mr. Ajit Kr. Mishra, Ld. A.G.P.
Mr. Indradeep Pal
…..Advocates for State
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
Date: 08.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
(Per Court)
1. The Petitioner has filed this PIL in service matters, assailing the alleged transfer of large number of teachers. The Petitioner claims to be an NGO, who is before the Court to espouse the cause of the transfer of teachers. None of the transferred teachers are before us.
2. At this juncture, the Petitioner, who claims to be the Chairperson of the Petitioner-Organization, and is also a practicing lawyer, submits that he is voluntarily performing social service for the Petitioner- Organization and does not earn a salary and is not on the roles of the Petitioner-Organization.
3. A PIL in service jurisprudence is not to be entertained, except in rare circumstances. According to the Petitioner, 200 to 300 teachers have been transferred. Now, the Petitioner in person informs us that some of the teachers have challenged their transfer orders before the Jalpaiguri Bench considering that the cause of action arises in Jalpaiguri Jurisdiction of this Court. Since, this Petition was filed as a PIL, it has been circulated before the Principal Seat, under the PIL Rules.
4. Considering the above and since some of the teachers have already approached the Jalpaiguri Bench challenging the legality and validity of such transfers, we would not entertain this Petition as a PIL. If any teacher is aggrieved by his or her transfer order, notwithstanding the fact that transfer is a normal incident of service, let the concerned Bench before which the Petition is filed, deal with the legality of such transfers.
5. In view of the above, this Petition is dismissed. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice