1 2025:CGHC:58771-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 888 of 2025 Satya Prakash Choudhary S/o Ramcharitra Ram Aged About 41 Years Presently Working On The Post Of In-Charge Circle Organizer, Janpad Panchayat - Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Schedule Cast And Schedule Tribe Development New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 3. Collector (Tribal Development) Surguja Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Development) Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 5. District Education Officer Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 6. Block Education Officer Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 7. Chief Excusive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 8. Tikeshwar Chouhan Presently Working On The Post Of Hostel Superintendent (Grade-C Middle Level, Posted At Trible Boys Ashram Bansajhal, Block - Batouli, District - Surguja (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.04 18:08:46 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 12528 of 2025 (Satya Prakash Choudhary vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was posted as Circle Organizer, Block–Sitapur by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.12.2020 after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the department. After such posting, the appellant regularly discharged his duties on the said post and no complaint was ever made against him. He further submits that vide order dated 17.10.2025 issued by respondent No. 3, respondent No. 8 has now been posted as In-charge Circle Organizer, Sitapur in place of the appellant. 3 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the posting of the appellant as In-charge Circle Organizer, Sitapur was made by the Commissioner, and therefore, the Collector/respondent No. 3 is not competent to cancel or modify the said posting order. Reliance is placed upon the departmental circular dated 30.10.2015, which clearly stipulates that where a posting order has been issued by a higher authority in the department, the Collector has no jurisdiction to modify or cancel such order or to post any other person in place of the incumbent. However, contrary to the said circular, respondent No. 3 cancelled the posting order of the appellant and posted respondent No. 8 in his place. It is submitted that being aggrieved by order dated 17.10.2025 issued by the Collector, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.11.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was posted by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, after obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificate, and there was no complaint against him. It is argued that only with a view to accommodate respondent No. 8, respondent No. 3 cancelled the posting order of the appellant, which is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the circular dated 30.10.2015. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate these grounds and the factual matrix of the case and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal has been preferred. 4 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the appellant was only holding the position of In-charge, which does not confer upon him any substantive or vested right. It is further submitted that the appellant has merely been reverted/transferred to his substantive post of Teacher, and such action does not warrant interference by this Court. It is argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the documents placed on record. 8. Upon due consideration, we find no substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. The appellant was only an In- charge Circle Organizer, which is not a substantive post and does not create any enforceable right in his favour. The departmental circular dated 30.10.2015 does not override administrative exigencies, nor does it prohibit the competent authority from reverting an employee to his substantive post. Further, the appellant has merely been posted back to his substantive post of Teacher, and no service condition or fundamental right has been infringed. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has no vested right to continue as In- charge Circle Organizer and has rightly refused to interfere with the administrative decision of the respondents. 9. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from no illegality or perversity 5 warranting interference by this Court. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan