1 2025:CGHC:56012-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 831 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Bhaskar S/o Shri A.L. Bhaskar Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Block Education Officer S.Lohara, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) ...Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Devendra Sahu Assistant Block Education Officer S.Lohara District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.19 13:01:08 +0530 2 18.11.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 12167 of 2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in WP(S) No. 12167/2025. 2. This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside the order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P/1 of Writ Petition) and order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P/2 of Writ Petition) whereby the appellant/petitioner has been transferred to Govt. High School Pendarwani Block Chuikhadan, District Khairagarh Chuikhadan Gandai as a Principal and the respondent no.3 who is holding the lower post of Assistant Block Education Officer has been posted as In Charge Block Education, Sahaspur Lohara. 3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the relieving order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure 3 P/3 of Writ Petition) and allowed the appellant/petitioner to work as Block Education Officer at Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4. This Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the appellant/petitioner's salary for the inter-regnum period along with interest.” 3. Facts of the case are that the appellant was transferred by order dated 29.09.2025 from the post of Incharge Block Education Officer, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdharm to his substantive post of Principal, Govt. High School Pendarwani, Block Chuikhadan, District - Khairagarh. The appellant preferred the writ petition against the transfer order which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench, thus this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 5. From the record it is quite vivid that the petitioner is posted as Incharge Block Education Officer for the last 6 years. It is well settled position of law that an employee cannot insist to remain posted at a particular place forever. Moreover, the substantive post of the petitioner is Principal, therefore, no service condition of 4 the petitioner has been adversely affected. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents which warrants interference in the impugned transfer order. 7. According, the writ petition sans merits and it is dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was promoted to Principal on 27.06.2015 and was entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer in 2019. The order transferring respondent No. 3, Devendra Sahu, Assistant Block Education Officer, in his place at Lohara is illegal, arbitrary, and malafide, as it bypasses the senior appellant and assigns the charge to a junior officer. It is submitted that as per the standing circulars of the General Administration Department and the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 (Clause 2.2), vacant posts must be filled by officers of equal rank, with senior-most officers given charge. Clause 17 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, further provides that 75% of Block Education Officer posts are to be filled by Principals with at least five years’ experience. The appellant satisfies this criterion and is thus fully eligible. Accordingly, the transfer is contrary to law, policy, and rules, and the appellant’s entitlement to the post of Block Education Officer 5 may kindly be recognized by quashing the transfer order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that respondent No. 3 is also having experience of 10 years on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer, therefore he is equally eligible for promotion to the post of Block Education Officer, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents in sending the appellant to his substantive post, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. On careful consideration of the record, it is evident that the appellant’s substantive post is that of Principal, and he has been temporarily entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer since 2019. The transfer order dated 29.09.2025 merely restores the appellant to his substantive post while assigning the charge of Block Education Officer to respondent No. 3, who also possesses substantial experience of 10 years as Assistant Block Education Officer. 9. It is well settled that an employee cannot claim to remain posted at a particular place indefinitely, and the temporary charge held by 6 the appellant does not confer any indefeasible right to continue in that assignment. The respondents have acted within the ambit of applicable rules, policies, and circulars, including the General Administration Department’s transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, which allow competent authorities discretion to assign charges based on experience and administrative requirements. There is no evidence to show that the transfer was motivated by malafide intent or arbitrariness. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed warranting judicial interference. 10. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti