WP(C) 332/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. I have also heard M r. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-15 order dated 23.12.2009, b y which she has been placed under suspension on the ground of not allowing the R espondent No.5 to join the promotional post of Headmaster of the school in quest ion. The Respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Headmaster in the said scho ol by order dated 3.9.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Be it stated here that he is a selected candidate for appointment/promotion to the post of Headmas ter. On the other hand, the petitioner, who had been functioning as I/C Headmis tress of the school, although had appeared in the selection but could not qualif y. 3. When the charge of post of Headmaster was not handed over to the Respond ent No.5 by the petitioner, Annexure-15 order dated 23.12.2009 came to be issued and presently, the petitioner is under suspension. However, it is submitted th at no follow up action, by way of initiation of departmental proceeding, has bee n taken although the order of suspension was passed in contemplation of a depart mental proceeding. 4. According to the Respondent No.5, presently, he is under attachment in t he office of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur as he was not hand ed over the charge of the post of Headmaster. It is not understood as to why the official respondents could not allow the Respondent No.5 to hold the post of He admaster, even after placing the petitioner under suspension. 5. As the records revealed, the petitioner is at the verge of retirement. P ursuant to the impugned order of suspension, the authorities have also not initi ated any departmental proceeding. If that be so, in terms of the requirement of the review to be carried out in the matter of suspension of an employee, it is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of the ord er of suspension facilitating that the petitioner may prefer an appeal against t he said order of suspension to the appellate authority. In the event of preferr ing such an appeal within 15 (fifteen) days from today, the appellate authority shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not l ater than 31st December 2010. 6. Since the Respondent No.5 is a selected candidate, there is nothing wron g in posting him as Headmaster of the school. While it is the case of the petit ioner that there was no obstruction on her part in allowing the Respondent No.5 to join as Headmaster, it is the stand of the respondents, both official and pr ivate, that because of the obstruction on the part of the petitioner by way of n ot handing over the charge, the Respondent No.5 could not join the promotional p ost of Headmaster. After placing the petitioner under suspension by the aforesai d impugned order dated 23.12.2009, the Respondent No.5 could have been allowed t o join the post of Headmaster, but instead, he was attached in the office of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur. It is not understood as to what d uties and functions the Respondent No.5 has been discharging in the said office. It is also not understood as to how the affairs of the school are being run in absence of regularly promoted Headmaster and/or the In-charge Headmaster in the school. 7. The respondents shall take consequential action in terms of this order. Writ petition is disposed of.