High Court · 2012

The petitioner, who is admittedly the senior most teacher in Lakhimpur A cademy H.S. School, Lakhimpur, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, allowing the respondent No.6 to hold the charge of the Principal of the said school by re jecting her claim, on the ground that the petitioner on earlier occasion i.e. on 09.08.2011 had expressed her reluctance to hold the charge of the Principal and hence she cannot subsequently claim the said post, which if allowed, would be (cid:28) derogatory (cid:29) to the respondent No.6 and also (cid:28)would not be in the public interest and in the interest of the academic atmosphere of the school. (cid:29) The ground on which the said order has been put to challenge is that tho ugh the petitioner on earlier occasion i.e. on 09.08.2011 had expressed her inab ility to shoulder the responsibility of the office of the Principal due to some domestic problem, the said communication expressing reluctance dated 09.08.2011 was withdrawn by her vide communication dated 21.04.2012 and despite that the Di rector has refused to allow the petitioner to hold the charge of the Principal o f the said school, on the grounds stated above. It has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has withdrawn the communication expressing reluctance date d 09.08.2011, vide communication dated 21.04.2012 and it is being an admitted po sition of fact that the petitioner is the senior most teacher in the school, the Director ought not to have refused to allow the petitioner to hold the charge o f the Principal on the ground that she having once expressed reluctance cannot c laim that she should be allowed to hold the charge of the Principal on the basis of the seniority. It has been submitted that the petitioner on 09.08.2012 had e xpressed reluctance due to some personal problem and thereafter when those probl em cease to exist, another application dated 21.04.2012 withdrawing the earlier communication dated 09.08.2011 was filed and as such the petitioner ought to hav e allowed to hold the charge of the Principal of the said school, which would al so not either against the public interest or against the interest and the academ ic atmosphere of the school. The learned standing counsel Education Department and the learned counse l appearing for the respondent No.6, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 have submitted that the Director has not committed any il legality in allowing the respondent No.6 to hold the charge of the Principal, as the petitioner had in writing informed about her reluctance to shoulder the res ponsibility of the office of the Principal. It has also been submitted that the petitioner having once expressed her reluctance, she cannot subsequently turn ar ound and claim the post. It appears from the materials made available on record that after the re tirement of the earlier Principal when the process of allowing the senior most t eacher to hold the charge of the Principal of the school was initiated, the peti tioner filed an application on 09.08.2011 expressing her reluctance to shoulder the responsibility of the office of the Principal, on the ground of her personal difficulty. Acting on the said communication an order was passed by the Directo r allowing the present respondent No.6 to hold the charge of the Principal, whic h, however, was put to challenge by another teacher, namely, Trinayan Dutta clai ming to be the senior most teacher of the said school. The writ petition filed b y Trinayan Dutta being WP(C) No.4836/2011 was disposed of vide judgment dated 21 .03.2012 setting aside the order passed by the Director allowing the present res pondent No.6 to hold the charge of the Principal. Vide another order dated 09.04 .2012 passed in Misc. Case No.1036/2012 it has been clarified that the Education Department will take appropriate decision relating to allowing the senior most teacher of the school to hold the charge of the Principal. Accordingly the order was passed by the Director allowing said Trinayan Dutta to hold the charge of t he Principal of the said school. Trinayan Dutta thereafter retired from service on 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation, as a result of which anoth er exercise has to be initiated by the Director for allowing the senior most per son to hold the charge of the Principal of the said school. The petitioner, howe ver, before retirement of Trinayan Dutta filed an application dated 21.04.2012 w ithdrawing the earlier communication dated 09.08.2011, whereby and whereunder th e petitioner expressed her reluctance to shoulder the responsibility of the offi ce of the Principal, on the ground of some family problem/personal difficulty. T he Director, however, by the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 allowed the respond ent No.6 to hold the charge of the Principal after the retirement of Trinayan Du tta from service, though the petitioner is admittedly the senior most teachers i n the school, on the ground that she earlier refused to shoulder the responsibil ity. The petitioner having submitted the application dated 09.08.2011 express ing her inability to shoulder the responsibility of the office of the Principal, no fault could be found in the Director’s earlier order allowing another person to hold the charge, which order, however, was put to challenge by Trinayan Dutt a in the aforesaid writ petition, which was eventually disposed of, as noticed a bove. However, the Director cannot subsequently refuse to consider the case of t he petitioner for allowing her to discharge the duties of the Principal of the s aid school, when she subsequently on 21.04.2012 has withdrawn the earlier commun ication dated 09.08.2011, when such consideration was made after retirement of s aid Trinayan Dutta from service. The petitioner may have some personal difficult y at one point of time as expressed by her in the communication dated 09.08.2011 , which personal difficulty ceased to exist thereafter for which she filed the a pplication on 21.04.2012. The ground on which the Director has refused to allow the petitioner, who is admittedly the senior most teacher of the school, to hold the charge of the Principal that it would be derogatory to the respondent No.6 and would also be against the public interest as well as against the interest of the academic atmosphere of the school, in view of the aforesaid discussion are not tenable in law. Had the petitioner been allowed to hold the charge of the Pr incipal on earlier occasion i.e. prior to retirement of Trinayan Dutta it would have been against the public interest or against the interest of the academic at mosphere of the school, as the petitioner was not willing to shoulder the respon sibility because of the personal problem at that point of time, which, however, according to the petitioner as reflected from the communication dated 21.04.2012 subsequently does not exist and hence the petitioner ought to have been given t he charge of the Principal of the said school, which has not been done by the Di rector. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Director is set aside. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam is directed to pass a fresh order in terms of what has been discussed above, wi thin a period of 1(one) week from the date of production of the certified copy o f the order passed today to be produced by either of the parties. Till such an o rder is passed, keeping in view the interest of the school, the order of status quo passed earlier shall continue. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.