1 2025:CGHC:51909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12210 of 2025 • Govind Kumar Sao S/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 61 Years Occupation - In Charge Block Education Officer Durg Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya P.S, Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Public Instruction Department Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner Division - Durg Distt- Durg (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer Durg Gandhi Chowk Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 5. Shri Vinod Kumar Shukla Aged About 55 Years, In - Charge Block Education Officer Basna Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State. : Mr. K.S. Saini, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 2 17/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the extent that the petitioner has been directed by the Commissioner to join his original post as Lecturer (English). 2. The brief facts of the case reflected from the record are that the petitioner who is having substantive post of Lecturer was made In-charge, Block Education Officer, but due to some irregularities, charge sheet has been issued and he was suspended. Thereafter suspension order was revoked by the Commissioner and he was directed to be posted at his substantive post of Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School, Dargaon, Block Dhamdha, District Durg. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that to accommodate respondent No.5 this order has been passed and in his place Incharge, respondent No. 5 has been posted who is presently working as Block Education Officer, District Mahasamund. Thus, he would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that the petitioner is having substantive post of Lecturer, therefore, the Commissioner exercising his power has rightly revoked his suspension and he has rightly posted the petitioner on substantive post, thus there is no illegality and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is quite vivid that substantive post of the petitioner is Lecturer and he was Incharge, Block Education Officer which has been withdrawn by the State and in view of the well settled position of law that if the Government servant who is not holding substantive post has no right to be posted which is not a substantive post and also considering the fact that since suspension of the 3 petitioner has been revoked, as such he has to be posted to his substantive post as Lecturer. Accordingly, withdraw of the charge from the petitioner and to post him on his substantive post as Lecturer does not suffer from illegality or violation of the statutory rules warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.10.27 18:39:22 +0530