1 2025:CGHC:4591-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 37 of 2025 Sohit Kumar Patel S/o Shri Netram Patel Aged About 42 Years Head Master Government Pre- Secondary Boys School Tarbahar Bilaspur Vikas Khand Bilha District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Director Directorate of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. District Education OfÏcer Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education OfÏcer Block Bilha Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Chitrarekha Tiwari Head Mistress Government Girls Pre School Tarbahar Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.28 16:14:08 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 .01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8085 of 2024 (Sohit Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted on the post of Headmaster at Government Pre Secondary Boys School, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Block - Bilha, District Bilaspur. He got selected for the departmental B.Ed. Course and subsequently, he was relieved from Government Pre Secondary Boys School, Tarbarar, Bilaspur on 12.09.2024. The post of Headmaster at School was lying vacant; therefore, the respondent authorities directed the appellant to hand over the charge of Headmaster to one Smt. Chitrarekha Tiwari, who is a teacher of Government Pre Secondary Girls School, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur. The appellant is aggrieved with the order issued by respondent No. 4 dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition), whereby, the appellant has been directed to hand over the charge of Headmaster to the teacher, namely, Smt. Chitrarekha Tiwari. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the circulars issued by the State Government, the charge of Headmaster should be handed over to the senior most teacher of the same school, whereas, in the present case, the charge has been handed over to the teacher of another school; therefore, the order is bad in law. He further submits that the appellant does not want hand over the charge to respondent No. 5 because, the respondent No. 5 had maliciously taken the furniture belonging to the school to her own house. Regarding which the appellant had filed WPCR No. 481 of 2024 for taking appropriate action against the respondent No. 5. Therefore, if the appellant is forced to hand over the charge to respondent No. 5, then subsequently, the respondent No. 5 may maliciously implicate the appellant in false case. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the appellant has already been relieved to undergo B.Ed. training and he should not be aggrieved with the decision taken by the State authorities with regard to handing over the charge of the school. He would submit that it is a sponsored case as the appellant is not an aggrieved person. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 7. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that the appellant has already been relieved for B.Ed. training and he was directed to hand over the charge to a teacher, namely, Smt. Chitrarekha Tiwari vide order dated 18.10.2024, and thus, he is not an aggrieved party and even he 4 should not be an aggrieved party because he is not concerned with the administration of the school. It is for the State authorities or respondents to tackle the issue. 8. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 9. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is ready to handover the charge to the respondent No. 5, he further stated that the appellant has made a complaint against the respondent No. 5, therefore, some unfortunate incident may take place when the appellant goes to hand over the charge as respondent No. 5 is having some animosity with the appellant. 10. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent No. 4/Block Eduction OfÏcer is directed to ensure that the appellant be allowed to handover the charge to respondent No. 5 in accordance with law without there being any hindrance be caused while appellant goes to handing over the charge to respondent No. 5. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present writ appeal is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan