Kumari Augustina Xalxo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3640 of 2016 • Kumari Augustina Xalxo D/o Shri Ignesh Xalxo, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Assistant Director ( Education), District Education Office Balrampur- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue & Civil District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 2.

Upper Secretary, Chhattisgarh State School Education Department, Raipur, Revenue & Civil District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 3.

Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalay Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Revenue & Civil District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 4.

District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 5.

District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, (Chhattisgarh) 6.

Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, Revenue & Civil District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) 7.

I. P. Gupta, Posted As Incharge District Education Officer, Balrampur- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondent-1 to 6 : Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. AG on advance copy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 24/08/2016 1.

The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved by humiliation of being bossed over by respondent No.7, who is junior to the petitioner, posted as In-charge District Education Officer in the office at Balrampur, whereas, the petitioner is much senior to respondent No.7. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Principal in the year 1999, whereas, respondent No.7 has been promoted to the post of Principal in the year 2015 only. The petitioner cannot be subjected to this kind of humiliation to work in the same office as subordinate to a junior officer.

2.

Though, it is not necessary that the petitioner alone should have been given the charge of the District Education Officer, the situation of a senior officer being bossed over by his junior is a humiliation and the same must be avoided. It would have been better that either respondent No.7 was at some other place or if at all exigency requires, respondent No.7 for posting as In-charge District Education Officer, the petitioner ought to have been shifted to some other place.

3.

In view of the above consideration, respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate decision in the light of aforesaid observation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and appropriate orders may be passed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra