Dr. D. P. Kurre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3536 of 2015 • Dr. D. P. Kurre S/o Shri G.L. Kurre, Aged About 52 Years OccupationProfessor, (Economics Subject), At Govt. Danteshwari P.G. College, Dantewada, Civil & Revenue District South Baster Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Collector, Dantewada, Civil & Revenue District South Baster Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Dr. Shikha Sarkar, Assistant Professor (Presently In-Charge Principle), Danteshwari Govt. P.G. College, Dantewada, Civil & Revenue District South Baster Dantewada, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri PM Shriwas, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Ms. Astha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 08/10/2015

1. The matter pertains to handing over current charge of the office of

Principal of Government Danteshwari PG College, Dantewada.

2. By order dated 8.1.2015 one Dr. Shikha Sarkar has been made officiating Principal of the above said college. The petitioner being senior to Dr. Shikha Sarkar had preferred WPS No.150/2015, which was disposed of on 19.6.2015 directing the Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada to decide the petitioner's representation. The said representation has now been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.8.2015.

3. It is urged that one Vajainti Thakur, AG-II working in the college had lodged a complaint against the petitioner. However, subsequently Vajainti Thakur informed the Collector that the complaint against the petitioner was result of misunderstanding between them and at present their relations are cordial and she is not facing any difficulty in working with the petitioner. It is also stated that the complaint made by Vajainti Thakur was enquired and nothing was found against the petitioner. Thus, there is no reason for not handing over officiating charge of Principal of the college to the petitioner who is senior to Dr. Shikha Sarkar.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned order mentions the administrative exigency which has compelled the Collector to hand over the charge to Dr. Shikha Sarkar.

5. The letter written by Vajainti Thakur to Collector, Dantewada is dated

30.1.2015 i.e. after passing of the order by the Collector on 8.1.2015. Additionally, the said document does not bear receipt of the office of Collector.

6. In a matter like this which concerns handing over current charge of the office of Principal, this Court would not proceed to scrutinize the reasons assigned by the competent authority because it is purely administrative in nature. If the competent authority has assigned some reasons which do not appear to be ill-founded, this Court would not sit over the said order as appellate Court. The documents available on record would definitely indicate that there was complaint by Vajainti Thakur. In the said complaint, she had also mentioned that the petitioner was also harassing one Hitendra Kumar Sinha, a clerical staff of the college, who eventually resigned because of the petitioner. Thus, there are sufficient reasons for not handing over the officiating charge of the office of Principal of the College to the petitioner.

7. For the foregoing, there is no substance in the writ petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve