news details |
|
|
| 20 principals placed as I/C CEOs in violation of HC order | | HC directs Commissioner Secretary Education to file compliance or appear in person | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, May 2: The J&K High Court has expressed its displeasure over the placement of 20 principals of School Education department as In-charge Chief Education Officers despite a restraint order passed by the court.
After hearing Advocate appearing for the petitioner Gulzar Hussain, presently posted as District Education Planning Officer Rajouri, and AAG Ravinder Gupta appearing for the Education department, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed: "Before I proceed to frame a formal Robkar, I deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity of three weeks to the respondents to come up with the compliance of the judgment, that is, either place on record the order of regularization of the petitioner as principal 10+2 or take remedial measures as may be required to see that the directions passed by this court are complied with in letter and spirit. In case of failure, the Commissioner Secretary to government, School Education department shall appear in person on the next date of hearing."
Advocate submitted that despite categoric directions passed by the High Court on September 5, 2018 which restrained the Education department from promoting/placing principal 10+2 as CEOs, the Education department has issued a contemptuous government order no. 37-Edu of 2019, dated February 1, 2019, whereby 20 principals have been placed as In-charge CEOs in sheer violation of the directions passed by this court. Justice Kumar after considering the submissions made by both the sides and after perusing the record expressed his anguish and observed: "This court has categorically directed the respondents not to make any promotion/placement as In-charge CEO till the matter with regard to regularization of the petitioner as Lecturer 10+2 in terms of the judgment dated January 22, 2015 is concerned. This is a clear case of contempt." AAG Ravinder Gupta submitted that the Education department is in the process of implementing the directions of the court, however, the matter is required to be placed before the DPC constituted by the GAD. On the other hand Advocate Ahmed argued that rules be framed against the erring Administrative Secretary who dared to violate the categoric directions passed by the court. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
