1 2025:CGHC:7598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6442 of 2024 • Satyendra Prasad Parmar S/o Akal Sai Aged About 60 Years Presently Working As Headmaster, Middle School, Semra, Block- Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer, Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nand Kumar Gupta S/o Ramchandra Gupta Aged About 50 Years Originally Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Primary School, Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Khamiyan, Block- Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting-aside the order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give the charge of A.B.E.O., Kusmi to the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner has filed this writ 3 petition is being preferred against the order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2, whereby reverted the petitioner to his original post i.e. Headmaster, Middle School and further the charge of Assistant Block Education Officer, Kusmi has been given to the respondent no. 5, which is contrary to the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education and Administration Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, as the respondent No. 5 is originally posted on Class-III post as Assistant Teacher (L.B.), whereas the petitioner is original posted as Headmaster, Middle School and further the petitioner is much senior most in the cadre and he was promoted as Headmaster, Middle School on 05.09.2012. It is submitted that on 26.08.2019, the petitioner was given the charge of Assistant Block Education Officer (A.B.E.O.), Kusmi and the said charge was given to the petitioner till regular posting/appointment of A.B.E.O. However, all of sudden vide impugned order dated 13.08.2024 the respondent No. 2 has reverted the petitioner to his original post i.e. Headmaster, Middle School and given the charge of A.B.E.O. to the respondent No. 5, who is much junior to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the said order is an stigmatic order, but no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to file reply in respect of the stigma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned 4 order passed by the Collector, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj is not in accordance with law as the Collector is not the competent authority to pass such an order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that infact the Collector would have recommended the matter to the District Education Officer and the Director, Public Instruction Department as if any such order is required to be passed against the petitioner, the Director would be the competent officer, however, in this case the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj , however, he submits that being the capacity of the District as Collector, the Collector is having overall power to pass such an order. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 supports the argument raised by counsel for the State. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that the Collector is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority as such the impugned order passed by the Collector seems to be erroneous one as such in the opinion of this Court the impugned order suffers from illegality and 5 arbitrariness. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Leaving it open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat