1 2025:CGHC:48293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6067 of 2023 1 - Radhelal Jaiswal S/o- Mahajan Jaiswal Aged About 58 Years Posted As In- Charge Block Education Officer, At Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramakant Dewangan Assistant Block Education Officer, Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19.09.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set-aside/quash the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 order Dated 24.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Under Secretary, School Education Department; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order thereby to keep the earlier posting/transfer of the petitioner on the post of In-charge Block Education Officer, Kasdol District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara intact. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court to grant any other relief/ order, which may be deemed fit, proper & just in the facts & circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner currently serving as the In-charge Block Education Officer at Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Previously, the petitioner held the post of Lecturer at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kasdol, in the same district. Pursuant to an official transfer order dated 30.09.2022, issued by the Under Secretary of the School Education Department, the services of petitioner were transferred from his Lecturer position to the post of In-charge Block Education Officer, Kasdol. The petitioner complied with the order and assumed charge of the new post accordingly. However, the private respondent, aggrieved by the transfer order, filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court (WPS No. 8244/2022, Ramakant Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh). The Court disposed of the petition vide order dated 02.12.2022, directing the 3 Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy, 2022, to consider and decide the representation submitted by petitioner vide dated 18.10.2022 at the earliest, preferably within two weeks of the petitioner submitting a copy of the order of the Court. The direction explicitly referred to Clause 2.9 of the Transfer Policy, 2022, along with relevant circulars issued by the State Government. Despite the clear directive issued by the Court, the Under Secretary of the School Education Department, acting without jurisdiction and without the approval or opinion of the senior secretaries’ committee mandated by the Court, suo-motu cancelled the transfer order of petitioner. By order dated 24.07.2023, the Under Secretary allowed the representation filed by the private respondent and revoked the transfer of petitioner, subsequently posting him to the office of the District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. As per Schedule-II of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, the post of Block Education Officer/Assistant Director (Administration) is to be filled partially by promotion of Assistant Block Education Officers and by Principals with requisite experience. The substantive post of petitioner is Lecturer, whereas the private respondent holds the post of Assistant Block Education Officer, which is junior to the rank of petitioner. It appears that the Under Secretary has acted arbitrarily and mala fide by treating the transfer and posting decisions independently, 4 disregarding the committee of senior secretaries and established rules and circulars issued by the State Government. The cancellation of the transfer order of petitioner was made without requisite approval from the Secretary of the department or the Hon’ble Chief Minister, thus rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. The Transfer Policy, 2022, specifically provides that any cancellation or amendment of transfer orders beyond the prescribed transfer period can only be effected with coordinated approval, either at the district level by the Collector with the Minister in Charge’s consent or at the state level by the Secretary with approval from the departmental Minister. The unilateral action of Under Secretary stands in direct violation of this policy and is therefore liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier posted as a Lecturer at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. By a valid transfer order dated 30.09.2022 issued by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, he was transferred and posted as In-charge Block Education Officer, Kasdol. The petitioner duly complied with the order and took charge of the post. Subsequently, the private respondent challenged the said transfer by filing WPS No. 8244/2022, which was disposed of by this Court on 02.12.2022 with a direction to the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy, 2022, to consider and decide the representation dated 18.10.2022 submitted by 5 respondent in accordance with Clause 2.9 of the Transfer Policy and relevant government circulars. However, instead of following the direction issued by the Court, the Under Secretary, without jurisdiction or approval from the Committee of Senior Secretaries or the competent authority, suo-motu cancelled the transfer order of petitioner. By order dated 24.07.2023, the Under Secretary allowed the representation submitted by respondent and cancelled the posting of petitioner, reassigning him to the office of the District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. This action is arbitrary, without legal authority, and in violation of the order passed by this Court. As per the 2019 Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 75% of Block Education Officer posts are to be filled by Principals with five years’ experience, and 25% by promotion from Assistant Block Education Officers. The petitioner, being a senior Lecturer, is substantively senior to the private respondent, who holds the lower post of Assistant Block Education Officer. Moreover, the Transfer Policy, 2022, mandates that cancellation or amendment of a transfer order beyond the transfer period requires coordination and approval from the competent authority, at the District level by the Collector with approval by Minister, and at the State level by the Secretary in Charge with approval of the Departmental Minister. The impugned cancellation order, having been passed without such approval, is procedurally flawed, without jurisdiction, and liable to be set aside. 6 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. The petitioner, whose substantive post is that of a Lecturer, was transferred as In-charge Block Education Officer (BEO), Kasdol, by order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/2). This order was challenged by respondent no. 4, Ramakant Dewangan, in W.P. (S) No. 8244/2022, on the ground that he was senior and eligible under the applicable service rules to be posted as In-charge BEO. The Court, by order dated 02.12.2022, directed the committee constituted under the Transfer Policy, 2022, to consider representation dated 18.10.2022 filed by respondent no. 4. In compliance with the direction by the Court, the committee examined the representation and concluded that it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter, as the Transfer Policy allows representation only against one's own transfer and not that of another. Accordingly, the committee recommended rejection of the representation (Annexure R/1). However, based on the service rules and eligibility criteria under the 2019 Recruitment and Promotion Rules, it was found that only Principals with five years’ experience or Assistant BEOs can be appointed as BEO. The petitioner, being a Lecturer, did not meet the required criteria. Therefore, the Government, after due approval and in compliance with policy and procedure, cancelled the transfer of petitioner and continued respondent no. 4 in the post. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It was issued in 7 accordance with the Transfer Policy, 2022, and with proper approval. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.07.2023 by which respondent No. 4 was posted as In-charge Block Education Officer (BEO), Kasdol, replacing the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Block Education Officer (ABEO) in 2015 and has been serving with requisite experience since then. According to the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (“Rules, 2019”), only Principals with at least five years’ experience or Assistant BEOs with five years’ experience are eligible for promotion or appointment as BEO. The petitioner, however, holds the substantive post of Lecturer, whose next promotion is Principal, and is thus ineligible for the BEO post. The Court has repeatedly held that postings to BEO must strictly adhere to these Rules, 2019. The transfer of petitioner as In- charge BEO vide order dated 30.09.2022 was challenged by respondent No. 4 before this Court (W.P. No. 8244/2022), which directed the Transfer Policy Committee to consider the representation. The Committee rejected representation filed by respondent No. 4 on procedural grounds, but the Government thereafter, in line with the Rules and directions issued by the Court, cancelled the transfer of petitioner and posted respondent No. 4 as In-charge BEO. Furthermore, the Court emphasized 8 Clause 2.9 of the Transfer Policy, 2022, and relevant Government circulars dated 16.05.2012, 07.02.2013, and 14.07.2014, all mandating that seniority and eligibility govern postings and transfers. The petitioner, being junior and ineligible, cannot claim entitlement to the post of BEO. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 is lawful, valid, and in accordance with the Rules, relevant policy, and judicial directions. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the record. 7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noted that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 14.08.2023 challenging the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, which cancelled the posting of petitioner as In-charge Block Education Officer, Kasdol, and posted respondent No. 4 in his place. It is evident that a considerable period has elapsed since the filing of this petition. Due to the passage of time, the claim of petitioner has become largely redundant and moot. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is held that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned authority by raising all relevant grounds, including the ground that the report of the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy, 2022, was not duly considered before passing the impugned order. The 9 respondent authority is directed to consider the representation of petitioner afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, following the applicable service rules, Transfer Policy, and judicial directions. Such consideration and decision shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge