GEETA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State; respondent no. 8 and respondent no. 9 in his personal capacity.

(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(3.) Basically the issue involved was that though the petitioner was made the Incharge Headmaster of Utkramit Middle School, Pratap Mathia, Block-Sangrampur in the district of East Champaran, but respondent no. 10, who was earlier designated as Incharge was still continuing with the charge of Incharge Headmaster. It appears that initially the respondent no. 10 was made Incharge Headmaster by the respondent no. 9, by order dated 19.10.2016, upon superannuation of the erstwhile incumbent, but subsequently, on a representation filed by the petitioner, the respondent no. 9, by order dated 08.11.2016 made her Incharge Headmaster in view of she being declared senior to the respondent no. 10. However, despite such order being issued, the actual transition on the ground, of the petitioner being given the powers, including that of maintaining registers, was never passed over to her and respondent no. 10 continued to discharge such functions, both on the administrative as well as financial side. The respondent no. 3 intervened in the matter on the basis of representation filed by the respondent no. 10 and by order dated 08.03.2017 directed the respondent no. 9 to make fresh arrangement of Incharge Headmaster in terms of the departmental circular and the order dated 08.11.2016 in favour of the petitioner was stayed. Thereafter , the respondent no. 9 again made the respondent no. 10 as Incharge Headmaster. In the meantime, the petitioner being aggrieved, moved before the respondent no. 7 and order dated 15.04.2017 was issued in favour of the petitioner making her Incharge Headmaster on the administrative side. The respondent no. 9, thereafter issued a letter making the petitioner Incharge Headmaster by order dated 20.06.2017, but with a rider that only administrative matters be dealt with by her and with regard to financial powers, the same be exercised by the Headmaster of another school. On 22.06.2017, after hearing the parties, the Court had observed that the authorities shall file counter affidavit and the State authorities shall ensure that the petitioner is allowed to function as Incharge Headmaster without any let or hindrance from any quarter to the extent that she is entitled to under any existing policy/notification/circular of the State Government. The order was never actually complied by the authorities and thus on 17.07.2017, the Court had directed the District Magistrate, East Champaran to himself report as to whether the allegation by the petitioner that despite there being an order in her favour to act as Incharge Headmaster of the school in question with regard to administrative functions and another regular Headmaster of the neighboring school being vested with financial power, it was the respondent no. 10, who was still exercising both administrative and financial powers. In terms of the said exercise, an exhaustive report has been brought on record by way of affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran today. The same discloses grave irregularities and lapses on the part of the respondent no. 9, which is well documented from the papers and which clearly indicate that besides there being violation of various circulars of the Government, even the order of the High Court was not acted upon/complied with. In this connection, learned counsel for the State has submitted that appropriate action shall be taken against the then respondent no. 9 and as an interim measure, he has already been shifted back to the teaching side and is no more the Block Education Officer. It was submitted that such action shall be taken expeditiously to its logical conclusion in right earnest. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that now she is exercising all administrative powers as per the notification of the State Government. However, it has been stated that the regular Headmaster of an adjoining school is the person responsible for all financial transactions. The respondent no. 7, who is present in Court stated that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons have also been paid their salary on the basis of attendance marked in the separate register maintained by the petitioner and that the same shall be regularized and shall not be held against her in future. He has also clarified that as and when grants come, payments are made and salary for the month of April has already been paid. He has assured the Court that as and when and to the extent other teachers are paid, the petitioner shall also be paid, without any discrimination.