PUSHPA MAHANTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, Assam.

(2.) The petitioner, who was the Headmistress in the Naobaicha Balika Prathamik Vidyalaya under North West Block of Jorhat had superannuated from her service on 31.01.201 The provisional matriculation certificate issued to the petitioner by the Headmaster of the Jhanji Girls High School, where she had studied, indicates that her date of birth is 01.06.1956. Accordingly, when the petitioner had joined service, her date of birth was accordingly recorded as 01.06.1956. But on the other hand, the matriculation certificate indicates the date of birth of the petitioner to be 01.10.1949.

(3.) Had the date of birth of the petitioner been considered as 01.10.1949, the petitioner would have superannuated from service on 30.09.2009. However, when such mistake was detected by the petitioner on or about 27.01.2012, while she was serving as the Headmistress of the concerned school, the petitioner herself visited the office of the BEEO, North West Jorhat and informed him about the anomalies regarding her date of birth. Accordingly, the petitioner was verbally asked to continue for some more days till some alternative arrangement is made to appoint a new Headmaster. Thereafter, on 17.02.2012, one Ashok Goswami was appointed as the Headmaster of the school and he had accordingly joined. After the aforesaid Ashok Goswami was appointed as the Headmaster, the respondent No. 4, being the Block Elementary Education Officer, had directed the petitioner to appear before him and give an undertaking in writing to refund the amount, which the petitioner had received for the period of her overstay in service. It is stated that the petitioner under duress had signed the said undertaking. Accordingly, the petitioner assails the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 4 in coercing her to sign the refund of the amount and prays that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities not to insist on the refund of the salary, which the petitioner had already been received.