Smt. Serophina Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2628 of 2017 Smt. Serophina Toppo W/o Shri Sanjay Prakash Toppo, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Government Teachers Colony, Kusmi, Tahsil : Samri (Kusmi), District : Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Tahsil & District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj, Balrampur, Tahsil : Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For State :
Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Intervenor :
Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/06/2017 Heard.
1.
The petitioner has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 25.05.2017 by which the petitioner has been shifted from the assignment of the office of Block Eduction Officer to teach in the school. 2.
The main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the order is stigmatic and therefore it ought to proceed an opportunity of hearing. 3.
The petitioner is not substantive holder of the post of Block Education Officer and the petitioner's substantive post is that of a Lecturer. The petitioner has been posted to teach in the Government School at Samri and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has been reverted to any lower post. 4.
However, it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved because the order
records certain reasons of exigency and public interest warranting shifting of the petitioner which are stigmatic in nature. Obviously, the order is based only on administrative exigency of service and public interest and not intended to impose any kind of penalty on the petitioner. 5.
As no notice was given to the petitioner, the order should only be treated as an order of administrative exigency and not an order of any penalty, stigma or adverse remarks against the petitioner. 6.
With this clarification, this petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha