EKTA RACHNA KINDO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner has been relieved from the assignment of In-charge, Head Master from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya High(+2) School, Umedanda, Burmu, Ranchi and one Amarendra Kumar, teacher has been given the said charge by the impugned order at Annexure-8 dated 27.10.2018 issued by the District Education Officer, Ranchi. Petitioner being aggrieved has assailed it. This is based upon an inspection carried out on the same day by the Respondents Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chottanagpur, Ranchi, District Education Officer, Ranchi and District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi in the school. During inspection, petitioner and one Clerk Manoj Kumar Sahu were found absent. The Officials during inspection enquired from the students, teachers, ministerial staffs, parents and villagers and acquired information which prima facie showed financial irregularities as also complaints of administrative and educational works in the school against the In-charge Head Master i.e., petitioner. For better educational arrangements and in the interest of students, these arrangement has been made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these prima facie findings on the same date of the inspection have been recorded against the petitioner without due verification of the records and scrutiny of the complaints. This inspection was prompted on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the Pramukh, Burmu Prakhand (Annexure-6) allegedly signed by certain parents and teachers but subsequently by letter dated 28.10.2018 (Annexure-9) written by the Member, Zila Parishad, Burmu Prakhand, the District Education Officer, Ranchi has been informed that the teacher Amarendra Kumar to whom charge has been given, belongs to the same place Umedanda. This aspect should have been taken into account while giving the charge of Head Master to this incumbent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that this letter has also been signed by the Pramukh of Burmu Prakhand. There is no basis in the allegation but petitioner has been unfairly victimized on unsubstantiated charges. This is the reason for her to approach the Court. Petitioner contends that she has attended the office of Respondent no.5 on the same day vide Annexure-7. This was in compliance of the direction issued earlier to submit a data base of teaching and nonteaching employees of the school. Such remarks are stigmatic and adversely affect the future career prospect of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that petitioner has duly entered her presence in the school on the same day which can be evident from the records of the school.