Miss Seema Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6073 of 2018 Miss Seema Agrawal D/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 38 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Professor (Political Science) At Late Jaydev Satpathi Govt. College Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. R/o Ward No. 14 Bagadpara, Pithoura, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Higher Education Directorate Block-3, Second And Third Floor, Indirawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Dr. Surendra Kumar Sao Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Professor (English), At Late Jaydev Satpathi Govt. College Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/09/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor (Political Science) at the Late Jaydev Satpathi Govt. College Basna, District Mahasamund. The charge of the Principal was given to the petitioner taking into account the fact that she was the senior most person in the institution and accordingly an order for drawing and disbursement power was also issued in favour of the petitioner.

2. Meanwhile, vide the impugned order the respondents have appointed the respondent No.3 as the incharge of the said institution, which has given rise to the grievance of the petitioner.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that there are circulars of the State Government wherein it has been specifically held that charge should always be given to the senior most officer in the institution and contrary to the said circulars of the State Government, the respondents have issued the order in favour of the respondent No.3. He further submits that the petitioner has already made a representation in this regard to the respondent No.2, which still stands undecided.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondent No.2 take a decision on the representation of the petitioner at the earliest taking into consideration the circulars of the State Government. In addition, the petitioner would also be at liberty to file a detailed representation afresh within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5. Meanwhile, in case if the impugned order has not been acted upon, let status-quo as is exists today be maintained till the decision on the representation of the petitioner is taken.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved