1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7821 of 2023 1 - Bhupendra Kumar Patel S/o Roshan Lal Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Pre Matric Anusuchit Jati Boys Hostel Kharsiya, Block Kharsiya, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Deepak Netam S/o Ram Kumar Netam Aged About 34 Years R/o Pre Matric Adiwasi Boys Hostel Polami, Block Pandariya, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Jai Manikpuri S/o Late Tribhuvan Das Manikpuri Aged About 34 Years R/o Pre Matric Adiwasi Boys Hostel Rajpur, Block Rajpur, Dist. Balrampur (C.G.) 4 - Harsh Prakash Dadsena S/o Gulab Ram Dadsena Aged About 34 Years R/o Chharra Tangar, Block Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administrative, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Director Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. R. K. Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be issued direction to the respondents authorities to produce all the relevant record relating to the case of the petitioner's before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to canceled/stopped to deputation of the Said Teacher cadre. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to process of filling option form should be canceled. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to grant Such other relief may be deemed fit and proper in the Interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 issued a circular dated 10.03.2015 directing that all Government primary, middle, higher secondary and other educational institutions being run under the Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department as well as the Urban Administration and Development Department shall stand transferred to the School Education 3 Department. The said circular was issued for administrative uniformity and rationalization of educational institutions. The aforesaid circular further provided that the entire teaching and non-teaching staff, including teachers, clerical staff, peons and other employees working in the educational institutions under the School Education Department, shall be categorized as Educational Cadre “A”. It was further stipulated that those employees, including teaching, clerical, peon and other staff, who were transferred and posted under the Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department would constitute a separate category known as Cadre “B”. The circular also delineated the respective administrative and financial control of both departments. Subsequently, teachers who were working as In- charge Hostel Superintendents started demanding deputation (Samviliyan/Pratiniyukti) to the Tribal Department to continue working as Hostel Superintendents. In this regard, the respondent authorities initiated a process of collecting option forms from such teachers, seeking their preference as to whether they wished to continue as teachers or to work as Hostel Superintendents on deputation. In the year 2016, the respondent authorities created fresh vacancies for the post of Hostel Superintendent, which were to be filled through a competitive examination. Upon such recruitment, the post of Hostel Superintendent was categorized as HS Grade “D”. The cadre of Hostel Superintendent consists of four grades, namely Grades A, B, C and D, which are structured 4 on the basis of experience and hierarchy. Teachers, assistant teachers, lecturers and primary/middle school Headmasters belonging to the E & T cadre, who had been working for a considerable period as In-charge Hostel Superintendents, are also seeking deputation to the said post. It is submitted that for a long period, regular recruitment to the post of Hostel Superintendent was not conducted through examination, and therefore such posts were managed by teachers who were simultaneously discharging duties as Hostel Wardens or Superintendents. Only a limited number of posts are available in Grade “B” of the Hostel Superintendent cadre. If the said posts are filled by deputed teachers from the Education Department, the regular Hostel Superintendent employees, including the petitioners, would be deprived of their rightful opportunity for promotion to Grade “B”. If the proposed deputation of teachers is finalized and implemented, the regular promotional avenues of Hostel Superintendent employees would be completely blocked. In such an eventuality, all promotional posts would be occupied by deputed teacher cadre, thereby depriving the regular Hostel Superintendent employees of career progression. The proposed deputation is likely to create serious administrative complications relating to seniority, promotion, and recruitment processes. Such an arrangement would result in grave prejudice to the petitioners and similarly situated employees and would amount to arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondent authorities. The 5 creation of different categories of deputed employees within the same cadre, without clarity on seniority and promotional rights, would further aggravate the situation and would effectively deprive the petitioners of their legitimate career advancement. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent authorities ought not to create or fill the posts of Hostel Superintendent through deputation of teachers, as the same is unfair, unreasonable and illegal, particularly when it adversely affects the rights of regular Hostel Superintendent employees. The Chhatrawas Adhikshak Kalyan Sangh Society has submitted several representations to the respondent authorities highlighting the above grievances and opposing the proposed deputation of teachers to the post of Hostel Superintendent. Despite the aforesaid representations, the respondent authorities have issued letters and reminders directing those employees who are working in non-teaching assignments to be relieved and attached back to their original or appropriate departments. In view of the aforesaid facts and actions of the respondent authorities, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition, as the impugned actions are arbitrary, illegal and violative of their rights relating to seniority, promotion and career progression. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the actions and decisions taken by the respondent authorities are wholly illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence. The impugned actions are not only 6 inconsistent with the statutory rules and administrative instructions governing the cadre of Hostel Superintendents but also violate the petitioners’ legitimate expectations relating to seniority, promotion, and career progression. It is further submitted that in view of the factual background narrated hereinabove, the respondent authorities were required to take immediate corrective steps instead of proceeding with the proposed deputation of teachers to the post of Hostel Superintendent. Learned counsel submits that the entire process of proposed deputation is misconceived and unlawful, and therefore the process of inviting and filling option forms from teachers must be stopped forthwith and the option forms already obtained be cancelled. Learned counsel emphatically submits that a large number of Hostel Wardens/Superintendents, including the petitioners, have completed the requisite qualifying service and experience period for promotion. However, despite availability of promotional vacancies, the petitioners have been deprived of promotion solely due to the arbitrary decision of the respondent authorities to fill such posts through deputation instead of by promotion in accordance with the applicable recruitment and promotion rules. It is further contended that teachers who are currently working as Hostel Wardens/Superintendents on deputation are professionally trained teaching personnel, possessing qualifications such as B.Ed. and D.Ed., having cleared TET and teacher recruitment examinations, and having been appointed primarily as members 7 of the teaching faculty. Learned counsel submits that such teachers ought to be repatriated to their parent departments and schools, where their academic expertise is required, which would also be in the larger interest of students and the education system. Learned counsel submits that upon repatriation of teachers to their respective schools and departments, the respondent authorities ought to fill up vacant posts of Hostel Superintendent strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules, either by promotion of eligible Hostel Superintendents or by fresh recruitment against sanctioned vacancies. 4. It is further submitted that wherever hostels or residential schools remain vacant, the nearest available Hostel Superintendent may be given additional charge purely as a temporary arrangement to ensure smooth functioning. The respondent authorities had earlier issued a notification for recruitment to new posts of Hostel Superintendent, thereby acknowledging the existence of vacancies and the need for regular recruitment. However, the subsequent cancellation of the said recruitment process without any justifiable reason is arbitrary, unreasonable, and prejudicial to the petitioners, who are otherwise eligible for promotion or appointment in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the cumulative effect of the impugned actions has resulted in stagnation of the petitioners’ service careers, denial of promotional avenues, and continued uncertainty in cadre management. Such actions are manifestly arbitrary and violative 8 of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that this Court may be pleased to intervene and issue appropriate directions to restrain the respondent authorities from proceeding with the proposed deputation process, cancel the option forms already issued, and direct the respondents to fill the vacant posts of Hostel Superintendent strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, thereby protecting the rights and legitimate expectations of the petitioners. 5. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that the present writ petition, as framed and filed by the petitioners, is devoid of merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the petitioners have failed to establish the existence of any enforceable legal or fundamental right in their favour for the protection or enforcement of which extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, the answering respondents/State have framed and implemented a rationalization policy dated 24.04.2025 and issued orders dated 02.08.2024 in consonance with the National Education Policy, 2020 and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The said policy was introduced with the object of ensuring availability of teachers in proportion to the number of students enrolled in schools, while keeping paramount the interest of students. The policy was 9 implemented after due counselling at the district and divisional levels for surplus teachers, and consequential directions were issued for cancellation of deputation and attachment of employees to departments other than their parent departments. In pursuance thereof, and on the basis of proposals received from the District Education Officers, surplus teachers were transferred and posted against available vacant posts within the Education Division of the State under the rationalization process. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid developments and policy implementation, no cause of action now survives in favour of the petitioners. The issues raised in the petition stand resolved by operation of subsequent policy decisions of the State, rendering the present petition infructuous and not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court in anticipation of any order relating to attachment, posting, or deputation to the post of Hostel Superintendent. In the absence of any specific, adverse, or impugned order affecting the petitioners, the present petition is premature and not maintainable in law. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel submits that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not tenable and as having become infructuous. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record 7. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondent authorities to produce relevant 10 records, to cancel or stop the proposed deputation of teachers to the post of Hostel Superintendent, to cancel the process of inviting and filling option forms, and to grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice. 8. At the outset, it is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when a legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed or there exists a demonstrable cause of action. Mere apprehension of future injury or speculative grievance cannot form the basis for issuance of a writ. In the present case, the petitioners have not challenged any specific or operative order of deputation, appointment or promotion affecting their service rights. The reliefs sought are essentially preventive in nature, founded on an apprehension that deputation of teachers may be undertaken in future. 9. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent-State has already framed and implemented a comprehensive rationalization policy in furtherance of the National Education Policy, 2020, with the objective of ensuring optimal deployment of teachers in proportion to student strength and in the larger interest of the education system. Consequential directions have been issued for cancellation of deputation and attachment of employees to departments other than their parent department, and surplus 11 teachers have been adjusted against vacant posts through a structured counselling process. 10. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the very foundation of the petitioners’ grievance no longer survives. The apprehended deputation, which formed the basis of the present writ petition, stands neutralized by the policy decision of the State. Furthermore, it is trite law that compassionate or promotional avenues do not constitute a vested or indefeasible right unless the applicable statutory rules so provide. Promotion is only a right to be considered in accordance with rules and subject to availability of vacancies. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate violation of any statutory rule governing promotion to the post of Hostel Superintendent or any illegality in cadre management presently in force. The policy decisions relating to deployment, rationalization and administrative control of employees fall within the exclusive domain of the executive, unless shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of statutory provisions. 11. In the present case, this Court does not find any such arbitrariness or illegality warranting judicial interference. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely, without there being any concrete adverse order affecting their service conditions. Entertaining such speculative challenges would amount to trenching upon administrative discretion and policy matters, which is impermissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12 12. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable legal right or subsisting cause of action so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE