Editor,

I wish to once again draw the attention of the authorities and the public to an issue that has repeatedly been raised by teachers affected by the ongoing transfer and rationalisation exercise of the Education Department.

I write not merely as a teacher, but as one of the affected teachers, who has been closely following the developments and has, on earlier occasions, raised concerns through representations and public forums. Despite repeated appeals, the present situation has once again left many teachers anxious about their postings and, more importantly, about the possible consequences of abrupt administrative decisions on schools and students.

The issue is not about opposing the transfer of teachers who are genuinely eligible for transfer. Transfers are an administrative necessity, and teachers who fulfil the prescribed conditions are expected to abide by the decisions of the competent authority. The concern arises when teachers who have not completed the mandatory three-year minimum tenure, or those engaged in census duty, BLO duty and other officially assigned responsibilities, are also subjected to transfer and subsequent release without their individual representations being properly examined.

The Education Department itself had earlier issued instructions providing for consideration of such circumstances. Therefore, when an affected teacher submits a representation supported by official documents, it is only reasonable that the representation be examined before the teacher is relieved from the present place of posting. A representation should not become merely a formality. There must be an opportunity for the competent authority to determine whether the grounds cited by the teacher are genuine and supported by records.

Concerns over errors in the teachers registry portal

Another matter that deserves serious attention is the reported occurrence of errors in the AI-based teachers registry portal (TRP). It has reportedly come to light that even two teachers who had already retired - Yonmum Tayeng (PRT) and Omem Borang (TGT) - were reflected as transferred through the portal.

If these reports are correct, they raise a significant concern about the reliability of the data and processes being used for such a sensitive exercise. A transfer and rationalisation process based on a digital registry must necessarily depend upon accurate and updated information regarding a teacher's service status, tenure, retirement, present place of posting and other relevant particulars.

A mistake involving already retired teachers is not merely an isolated technical issue. If similar errors have occurred in the records of other teachers, there is a genuine possibility that innocent teachers may also have been adversely affected by incorrect or outdated information reflected in the portal. This deserves verification before the transfer and release process proceeds further.

The authorities concerned should therefore consider conducting a thorough verification of the TRP data, particularly in respect of tenure, retirement status, census/BLO duty and other exemption-related information. Teachers should not be made to suffer because of an error or mismatch in an automated system. Where discrepancies are reported, the underlying records should be cross-checked with official service records before any consequential action is taken.

A question of fairness and administrative justice

There is also a larger question of administrative fairness: Why should a teacher whose representation is yet to be examined be treated in the same manner as a teacher whose case has already been found ineligible for exemption?

Genuine and non-genuine cases should be distinguished through proper scrutiny, rather than through a blanket approach. It would not be justice for genuine teachers who are not eligible for transfer to be forcefully released without their representations being properly examined. If a teacher has a valid and documented ground for exemption under the applicable provisions, that case deserves to be considered before the teacher is relieved.

The demand is therefore not to stop the entire transfer process. Rather, it is for a fair, transparent and case-by-case examination, so that teachers who are genuinely eligible for transfer can be released, while those having legitimate grounds for exemption are given due consideration.

Please consider the timing

What is particularly concerning now is the timing. The academic session is already at its mid-point, while the half-yearly examinations are scheduled to commence from 21 September. At such a crucial stage, the sudden release of teachers may disturb the continuity of teaching, particularly in schools where replacement teachers are not immediately available.

The ultimate impact may not be felt only by teachers; it may be borne by the students sitting in classrooms and preparing for their examinations. Once valuable classroom time is lost, it cannot be fully restored merely by subsequently filling a vacant post.

The situation deserves even greater attention in areas where schools are already facing shortages of subject teachers. Relieving teachers in haste, without simultaneously ensuring adequate replacement, could further strain the existing academic infrastructure and affect the quality and continuity of education.

As teachers, we understand that the department has the responsibility to rationalise manpower and ensure equitable deployment. At the same time, the department also has a responsibility to listen to genuine grievances and protect the academic interests of students. These two objectives need not be contradictory. A transparent, evidence-based and case-by-case examination of representations can address both.

An appeal to a people-friendly government

I sincerely hope that the authorities will also consider the manner in which the release process is being implemented. A forceful and blanket release of teachers without first considering their genuine representations may create an impression of a dictatorial approach - something that citizens and government employees would not expect from a people-friendly government.

A government is ultimately strengthened when the grievances of its citizens and employees are heard and addressed through due process. Listening to a genuine representation does not weaken administrative authority; rather, it reinforces people's confidence in the system.

I therefore humbly appeal to the competent authorities to reconsider any hurried release of teachers whose genuine exemption representations are still pending, examine their documents and circumstances individually, and take appropriate decisions in accordance with the applicable provisions.

Teachers whose cases are found eligible for exemption may be retained or otherwise dealt with as per the rules, while those found ineligible after due scrutiny may be released accordingly.

At the same time, the authorities may kindly examine the reported discrepancies in the teachers registry portal and ensure that no teacher is adversely affected because of erroneous or outdated digital records. The credibility of the entire transfer and rationalisation exercise depends upon the accuracy of the data on which such decisions are based.

This appeal is not against the authority of the Education Department or against legitimate transfers. It is an appeal for fairness, due consideration, accountability and a student-centred approach. Administrative orders can certainly be implemented, but when genuine teachers who are not eligible for transfer are released without proper consideration of their representations, the question of justice remains unanswered.

I sincerely hope that the authorities concerned will consider these concerns with administrative prudence and compassion, verify the reported discrepancies, hear the genuine representations of affected teachers, and ensure that justice is not sacrificed in the pursuit of speed.

A concerned affected teacher