JUDGMENT : Sahidullah Munshi, J. 1. Affidavit of service filed, be taken on record. 2. By this writ petition the writ petitioner has challenged an order of transfer issued on 2nd June, 2016 by the Chairman, South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council under his Memo No.0161/6 on a purported ground that the petitioner has become a surplus teacher as per the provisions of Right to Information Act. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of primary school on 16th February, 2010 and she was posted to Kharibari Junior Basic School under Joynagar circle in the district of South 24-Parganas. Petitioner joined her service on and from 24th February, 2010. The petitioner made a prayer before the district Primary School Council for transfer and in pursuance of such prayer she had been transferred to Uttar Khodar Bazar Free Primary School under Baruipur circle in February, 2011 and she joined the said transferred school on and from 17th February, 2011 and since then, the petitioner is performing her duties diligently and sincerely. It has been stated that such transfer was considered due to the petitioner’s various ailments owing to her hazardous journey. 4. It has been stated by the petitioner that recently various transfer orders have been issued by the Chairman, South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council whereby a large number of teachers had been transferred in different primary schools in the district of South 24parganas purportedly in the interest of local children as per provision of Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ of 2009). 5. Very recently the petitioner was served by the Chairman, South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council vide its Memo No.0161/6 dated 2nd June, 2016 whereby she had been purportedly transferred to Harimul Natun F.P. School under Baruipur circle and the petitioner has been directed to join the said school within one/two months from the issuance of the said order. Such transfer has been made purportedly for implementation of a proposal of rationalization of primary teachers in the district of South 24-Parganas, sent by the Chairman of the Council to the School Education Department, West Bengal and which had been approved by the said Department vide Memo dated 25th January, 2016. Accordingly, the petitioner has been transferred on the purported ground of interest of local children as per provision of the said Act of 2009. Accordingly, the petitioner has been transferred on the purported ground of interest of local children as per provision of the said Act of 2009. It has been alleged by the writ petitioner that the petitioner belongs to a teachers’ organization affiliated to the present opposition party in the State. The respondent no.5, out of vengeance, has resorted to harass the petitioner by issuing an order of transfer from one school to the other at a distant place. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Primary School Council has the authority in the matter of transfer since transfer of an approved primary school teacher is governed by the specific rule, namely, West Bengal Primary Education (Transfer of Teachers including Head Teacher) Rules, 2002. 7. According to the petitioner, since the impugned order of transfer has been issued by the Chairman, not by the District Primary School Council, the said transfer order is bad and not sustainable in law. The petitioner has further stated that according to the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the pupil -teacher ratio is fixed for Class-I to V. Section 25 together with the Schedule referred to therein are quoted below :- “25. Norms and Standards for a school Sl. No. Item Norms and Standards 1. Number of teacher Admitted children Number of teachers (a) For first classto fifth class Up to sixty Two Between sixty-one to ninety Three Between Ninety-one to one hundred and twenty Four Between one hundred and twenty-one to two hundred Five Above one hundred and fifty children Five plus one Head-teacher Above two hundred children Pupil-teacher ratio (excluding Head-teacher) shall not exceed forty (b) For sixty class to eighth class (1) At least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for- (i) Science and Mathematics; (ii) Social Studies; (iii) Languages (2) At least one teacher for every thirty-five children. (3) Where admission of children is above one hundred- (i) a full time head-teacher; (ii) part time instructor for- (a) Art Education; (b) Health and Physical Education; Work Education. 8. It appears that between 121 to 200 students, required strength of teachers is five. Mr. (3) Where admission of children is above one hundred- (i) a full time head-teacher; (ii) part time instructor for- (a) Art Education; (b) Health and Physical Education; Work Education. 8. It appears that between 121 to 200 students, required strength of teachers is five. Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petitioner submitted that rationalization of deployment of primary school teachers the above-mentioned principle under Section 25(1) of the aforesaid Act of 2009 has to be strictly followed by the concerned authorities, namely, the District Primary School Council but the same has been violated in case of the petitioner. Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari further submits that from a statement of the school which has been annexed as Annexure P-6 to the writ petition, it appears that at least four teachers are required in the said school where she is posted at present because students’ roll strength is 100 in the said school. Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari, handing up a Xerox copy of the monthly statement of the school where the petitioner is posted at present submits that as on 15th August, 2016, the school has got 111 students with a Head Teacher at the top. He submits that if 111 students are available according to the aforesaid statement four teachers at least should be there in the said school because, according to the ratio mentioned above, four teachers at least are required for students between 91 and 120. Therefore, according to Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari, the order of transfer is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act of 2009. The order of transfer, accordingly, should be set aside. In support of his submission Mr. Bari has further submitted that approval of the School Education Department vide its Memo dated 25.01.2016 cannot override the statutory provisions in regard to an order of transfer and, therefore, Chairman does not get any authority about the said Memo to pass an order of transfer. 9. In support of his submission Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari has relied on a judgment in the case of Biswanath Sarkar – Vs. – State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2012)4 WBLR (Cal) 807. Relying upon the said judgment Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari submits that power to transfer vests in the Council not with the Chairman. 10. Mr. 9. In support of his submission Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari has relied on a judgment in the case of Biswanath Sarkar – Vs. – State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2012)4 WBLR (Cal) 807. Relying upon the said judgment Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari submits that power to transfer vests in the Council not with the Chairman. 10. Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Vaisya, learned counsel appearing in support of the South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council, submits that Rule 4 of West Bengal Primary Education (Transfer of Teachers including Head Teacher0 Rules, 2002 is relevant for the purpose of deciding a case of transfer of an Assistant Teacher of a primary school. Rule 4 is quoted below:- “4. Condition for transfer : A Council may – (a) on its own motion, or (b) on an application from a teacher, transfer an approved teacher within its jurisdiction from one primary school to another primary school on the condition that such approved teacher is confirmed and has completed minimum two years of continuous service both in case of mutual or single transfer : 11. Provided that the Council may, if it considers necessary for proper utilization of service of a primary teacher in the interest of education, transfer an approved teacher without maintaining any time limit of service : 12. Provided further that where there is a surplus teacher according to roll-strength as stated in rule 3, the Council may, on its own motion, transfer such approved teacher without maintaining any time limit of service by way of rational adjustment of teacher in a primary school having deficit teacher in the following order of preference :- (i) a primary school without an approved teacher, (ii) a primary school having single teacher, and (iii) other primary school having shortage of teacher.” 13. The aforesaid rule specifies the conditions for transfer and it says that Council may, (a) on its own motion or (b) on the application from a teacher, make transfer of an approved teacher within its jurisdiction from one primary school to another primary school subject to compliance of other criteria. 14. However, an exception has been made in the proviso which is not applicable for the present case. 14. However, an exception has been made in the proviso which is not applicable for the present case. Second proviso of the rule says that where there is a surplus teacher, according to roll strength as stated in Rule 3, the Council may, on its own motion, transfer such approved teacher without maintaining any time limit of service by way of rational adjustment of teachers in a primary school having deficit teacher in the following order of preference : (1) a primary school without an approved teacher, (2) a primary school having single teacher and other primary school having shortage of teacher. 15. Mr. Vaisya submitted that in the exigencies even the Chairman can issue an order of transfer which is permissible under the rule and the same has been approved by a Division Bench judgment of our Court in the case of Primary School Council – Vs. – Rupuk Sengupta & Ors. reported in 2014(1) CHN (CAL) 365. On behalf of the Council, Mr. Bhaskar Vaisya has pointed out that the school wherefrom the petitioner has been transferred had a roll strength of 100, which, however, has been contradicted by Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari by placing on record the monthly statement which shows the roll strength is 111 to a school where the roll strength is 349 having teachers strength of three which includes one Para-Teacher. Therefore, according to Mr. Vaisya, some transfer is required to be made for rationalization of pupil-teacher ratio and the school where she has been transferred is in need of additional teacher. 16. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the documents on record this Court finds firstly, that the order of transfer impugned in this writ petition appears to be a non-speaking order. The authority exercised by the Chairman is contrary to the aforesaid rules for transfer framed by the Government. The Chairman has not annexed with his order of transfer any resolution of the District Primary School Council to show that Council has taken any such decision for transfer to meet the deficit in pupil-teacher ratio in the school to which the petitioner has been transferred. Therefore, the order impugned appears to be without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Secondly, the submission made by Mr. Therefore, the order impugned appears to be without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Secondly, the submission made by Mr. Vaisya that the school where she had been transferred, seriously lacks teachers strength, cannot be supported so far as the transfer of the present petitioner is concerned because she has been transferred on her prayer to the school Uttar Khodar Bazar Golam Rahman, only in 2011 and no reason has been assigned as to what prompted the authority to transfer her again to the present school where she has been transferred. Thirdly, the impugned order is directly in conflict with the pupil-teacher ratio as mentioned in Section 25(1) of the Act of 2009 even assuming that the other schools have a shortage of students but teacher from school which requires minimum four teachers, according to pupil-teacher ratio, that school cannot be disturbed. The provision of Section 25(1) of 2009 Act is a compulsory provision. No authority can deviate from the provisions of the said Act which is known as Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Therefore, by the impugned action, the Chairman of the district Primary School Council, has sought to disturb the very object enunciated under the Act. Lastly, to consider the submission of Mr. Samim-Ul-Bari that subsequent Division Bench taking note of the observation of the earlier Division Bench has categorically held that in an exigency the Chairman has the power to transfer a teacher. This submission can also be not accepted for the reasons that – (1) when there is a conflict between two Benches of the same Court of equal strength, the Third Judge before whom the said judgments are placed for consideration, it is up to his discretion to follow one of the two judgments which satisfies his conscience to be more rational according to law. (2) The subsequent judgment has not taken into consideration of the provisions of Right to Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Act. 17. Those apart, it is the settled law that an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court, although, appearing to be incorrect on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered by or raised before the Bench, cannot merely for that reason be said to be rendered per incurium. It is binding on a later Co-ordinate Bench. It is binding on a later Co-ordinate Bench. The later Co-ordinate Bench either has to follow it or may refer the matter to a Larger Bench. 18. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar – Vs. – Kalika Kuer Alias Kalika Singh and Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 448 that an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways – either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits. However, having regard to such decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Court is duty bound to follow the earlier decision passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 19. Therefore, this Court is of firm view that the authority exercised by the Chairman, South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council, is without any jurisdiction and/or authority to pass the impugned order of transfer and the same is set aside and quashed. 20. Writ petition is allowed. Later : Learned advocate for the Council prays for stay of this judgment. Prayer is considered and refused.