^0'..-•-, .^••""^y"' ^\^&^ 's^^ ^^w;..--:-:^ ,e*l< Singl®Banch ^t^ ri^ &^i^7 WRIT PETITION (S.j No.S^j /2011 PETITIONER Smt Jaya Ghosh, aged about 34 years, W/o Kumar Tripathi, R/o Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, Distt. Koriya 1. y'TheState of Chhattisgarh through its s' Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat Rural Development Departinent, ^ D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur 2. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, i"" Paden Jila Pariyojna Sanchalak, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Distt. Koriya (Baikunthpur) Baikunthpur , ^ ' 3. Sushri Yogeshwari Singh Shiksha Karmi Grade 1, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Avashi Vidhyalaya Janakpur, Distt. Koriya . k ")? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (Sl No. 3371 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Jaya Ghosh State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. forthe resppndent No.l/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Alok Bakshi and Shri Mazid Ali for respondent No.3 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (03.11.2011) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by respondent No.2 withdrawing the additional charge of the post of Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Avashi Vidyalaya, Janakpur from the petitioner and giving the same to respondent No.3 herein. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) the additional charge of Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Avashi Vidyalaya, Janakpur was given to the petitioner who was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade II which has been withdrawn at the behest of respondent No.3 though she is not entitled for the same as very serious charges have been levelled against her and she has been subjectedto show cause notices dated 7.6.2011 and 8.7.2011 (Annexures A-3 and A-1) respectively. He submitted that the charge of Superintendent was given to respondent No.3 in an illegal manner just to favour her. According to him, subsequent to filing of writ petition, on 8.7.2011 (Annexure A-1) has been issued leveling very serious charges against respondent No.3 and looking to these charges she cannot be given the charge of Superintendent of Girls hostel. ;s:^ ^2- 3. Replying to this argument, it has been argued by counsel for respondent No.2 that so far issuance of first show cause notice dated 7.6.2011 (Annexure A-3) is concerned, that was issued due to some misunderstanding as the relevant document (Annexure R-2/1) was not within the knowledge of respondent No.2. In respect of notice dated 8.7.2011 (Annexure A-1) he submits that matter is under investigation and if ultimately something is found against her, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. He submits that work of the petitioner as in- charge Superintendent is not satisfactory and a show cause notice Annexure R-2/5 has been issued to her and therefore in the interest of the hostel, her removal is necessary. He however submits that after passing of thisorder, due care would be taken by the Collector and respondent No.2 and some suitable person would be posted as Superintendent of the Girls hostel. State counsel, adopting the arguments of Shri Kachhwaha submits that the Collector would be instructed to examine the matter in detail and then post a suitable person as Hostel Superintendent, if required. He submits that the petitioner has absolutely no right to continue as Hostel Superintendent and it is for the authorities to post a suitable person on the said post if administrative exigency so warrants. 4. Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that so-called charges levelled against respondent No.3 in the document ofAnnexure A-1 dated 8.7.2011 are frivolous and respondent No.3 would satisfy the authorities about the said charges. He submits that the charges are against the petitioner also and therefore it does not lie in her mouth to make allegation against respondent No.3. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Admittedly, by order impugned additional charge of Superintendent, KastQrba Gandhi Balika Avashi Vidyalaya, Janakpur has been directed to be given to respondent No.3. Substantive post ofthe petitioner is Shiksha Karmi Grade II and by the order impugned she is not going to be affected in any way. Petitioner as well as respondent No.3 have absolutely no right to claim a particular posting such as Hostel Superintendent. — -2 7. In this view of the matter, the petition is highly misconceived and dismissed accordingly. Needless to say that before appointing Hostel Superintendent, the authorities would take proper care keeping in view that it is occupied by Girls. Respondent No.2 is directed to apprise the Collector of the concerned district about the correct factual position and seek guidance. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge