1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 05.12.2025 Order passed on : 11.12.2025 WPS No. 2687 of 2023 1 - Ramkapur Kurre S/o Dhanaram Kurre Aged About 56 Years Occupation Block Resources Coordinator (City), Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (Originally Holding The Post Of Headmaster Alongwith The Block Resources Coordinator, Korba) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector And District Mission Director Samgra Shiksha Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ram Dular Keshkar Head Master Govt. Middle School Bhaisma Block Division Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The present petition assails Order No. 1194/stha./2023-24 dated 17.04.2023 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been illegally displaced and respondent No. 6 has been posted on the petitioner’s post. The petitioner was duly deputed by the State Government on 30.09.2022 to the post of Block Division Resources Coordinator, Rural Korba, and such deputation could not have been altered by respondent No. 3, who lacks jurisdiction. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash/set-aside the order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially promoted to the post of Headmaster, Middle School, by order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P/3). Prior to his promotion, owing to administrative exigencies, he had been temporarily assigned the duties of Block Resources Coordinator, Rural Korba, by order dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner is fully qualified 3 to hold the post of Block Resources Coordinator, as under the relevant rules the charge of Block Coordinator is required to be entrusted to an officer holding the post of Headmaster. Pursuant to an order dated 23.05.2022, the petitioner was directed to join his duties, and accordingly he was issued a joining order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexures P/5 & P/6). After assuming charge as Block Resources Coordinator at Urban Korba, District Korba, the petitioner observed that a contractual lady employee working as Accountant in the office of the Block Resources Coordinator, Urban Korba, was habitually absent from duty and failed to attend office during prescribed working hours despite repeated advice. In view of her continued misconduct, the petitioner submitted a written complaint dated 06.10.2022 to respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/7). However, respondent No. 4 failed to take any action against the said employee for reasons best known to him. Considering the petitioner’s efficient performance as Block Division Resources Coordinator, the State Government issued an order dated 30.09.2022 posting him on deputation as Block Division Resources Coordinator, Rural Korba (Annexure P/8). Despite the existence of this valid deputation order, respondent No. 4, who was duty-bound to act upon the petitioner’s complaint, instead ignored the State Government’s order and, without jurisdiction, issued an order dated 05.12.2022 directing the petitioner to report at Government Middle School, Korkona, Block Division Korba (Annexure P/9). Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before this Court, which granted interim 4 protection on 09.01.2023 staying the operation of the order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P/10). Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to suspension and one annual increment was withheld with non-cumulative effect, allegedly on account of his complaint against the said lady employee, even though his repatriation from deputation had never been ordered by the competent authority. The petitioner continued to remain on deputation as Block Division Resources Coordinator, Urban Korba. Following the interim order of this Court, the petitioner submitted representations dated 10.01.2023, 10.04.2023, and 13.04.2023 (Annexure P/11), drawing attention to the State Government circular dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P/12), which clearly mandates that postings made at the State Government level cannot be altered by subordinate authorities, and any such modification without cancellation of the original State-level posting order is impermissible. Despite this, respondent No. 3, in disregard of the applicable rules and without considering that the deputation order dated 30.09.2022 was still in force, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 17.04.2023, posting respondent No. 6, a Lecturer and not a Headmaster, to the petitioner’s post (Annexure P/1). The said action is arbitrary, illegal, and wholly without jurisdiction, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and liable to be quashed. It is argued that once the State Government 5 has passed a valid deputation order dated 30.09.2022 posting the petitioner as Block Division Resources Coordinator, Rural Korba, the same could not have been altered, modified, or superseded by respondent No. 3 unless the State Government itself formally cancelled or withdrew the deputation order. Reliance is placed on the Government Circular dated 30.10.2015, which categorically provides that postings made at the State level cannot be interfered with by subordinate authorities. Therefore, the post of Block Division Resources Coordinator, Urban/Rural Korba could not have been filled up through the impugned order in violation of the said circular, and respondent No. 3 clearly lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court, by order dated 09.01.2023, has already held that the petitioner’s services have not been repatriated by the competent authority, and therefore the deputation order dated 30.09.2022 continues to remain in force. In the face of this judicial pronouncement, respondent No. 3 was under a legal obligation to adhere to the existing deputation order and could not have passed the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 displacing the petitioner from his deputed post. The impugned action, therefore, amounts to a direct violation of the earlier order of this Court, rendering it void and unsustainable. It is also submitted that the Government circular empowers the Collector to take punitive action only against Class-III and Class-IV employees. The petitioner, however, is a Class-II employee and is presently on deputation 6 pursuant to the order dated 30.09.2022. Hence, respondent No. 3 has no authority whatsoever to issue any order that adversely affects the service conditions of the petitioner, particularly when he remains duly deputed to a State-level post. The impugned order thus suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, violates service rules, and is contrary to settled principles of administrative law. Lastly, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent has acted with gross procedural irregularity and mala fides, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. At the very outset, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and substance and deserves to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner has failed to establish the existence of any legal or enforceable right in his favour for the vindication of which a writ of this Court may be issued. The petition, as framed, is misconceived and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) has been issued by respondent No. 3 purely on account of administrative exigencies and as a stop-gap arrangement. The order is temporary in nature and does not confer any adverse civil consequences upon the petitioner so as to give rise to a cause of action for invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned State counsel further submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Head Master, Government Middle School, Andhrikachar. He 7 has joined on the promotional post and is presently discharging his duties there. Therefore, the reliefs sought in the petition have been rendered infructuous, as the petitioner has, by virtue of his own promotion, ceased to hold or claim the post in question. It is also pointed out that respondent No. 6, who was earlier posted as Block Resource Coordinator (City), Korba, has since been posted as Principal and is no longer holding the post of BRC (City). Presently, one Shri R.D. Keshar, a substantively appointed Lecturer, has been posted as Block Resource Coordinator (City) and is performing his duties. Hence, the petition, which is founded upon the earlier posting arrangement, has lost its substratum and no effective adjudication is now possible. In view of these developments, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition has become infructuous and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioner and respondent No. 6 have been promoted and are presently serving at entirely different places, leaving no surviving dispute requiring adjudication. 5. Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on wholly incorrect and self-serving premises, without placing the complete factual matrix before this Court. The petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of merit and substance and deserves to be dismissed in limine. The allegations that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the order dated 30.09.2022 issued by the State Government are baseless and contrary to the actual facts on 8 record. It is submitted that the petitioner holds no inherent or vested right to continue on the post of Block Division Resource Coordinator (BRC), which is not a regular or permanent post but merely an additional charge created under a scheme. The substantive post of the petitioner is that of Headmaster. Clause 2(II) of the Guidelines dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure P/4) categorically clarifies that BRPs may be assigned the charge of BRC, indicating that such postings are temporary, scheme-based, and subject to administrative discretion. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim continuity or protection on a post which he held only by virtue of an administrative arrangement. It is further submitted that the petitioner was permitted to discharge duties of BRC (Rural) initially under order dated 07.12.2019, and thereafter temporarily permitted to function as BRC (Urban) vide order dated 23.05.2022. These orders were issued by the competent authorities, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, from time to time, and the petitioner discharged such duties only by virtue of these temporary administrative orders. At no point did such assignment confer any substantive or legal right upon him. With respect to the order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/8), it is submitted that the said order itself was conditional in nature, providing that the deputation would stand automatically cancelled in the event of non-joining, retirement, or suspension. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 04.01.2023, and upon completion of departmental enquiry, a minor penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on 29.03.2023. 9 Consequently, in terms of Clause 3 of the order dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner’s deputation posting stood rendered void, and the said order ceased to operate. Thus, the petitioner’s contention that the impugned order could not have been issued without first cancelling the order dated 30.09.2022 is wholly misconceived, as the earlier order had already become inoperative by operation of its own conditions. It is further pointed out that the order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P/9), directing the petitioner to work at Government Pre-Secondary School, Korkoma, had been stayed by this Court in WPS No. 9216/2022; however, with the passage of time and subsequent developments, including suspension and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, that order has lost relevance and efficacy. In the foregoing facts, the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 has been validly issued by Respondent No. 3, who is the highest administrative authority within the district under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. Clause 2 of the Guidelines dated 03.09.2015 specifically vests the District Mission Director (Respondent No. 3) with the authority to make such administrative arrangements. Thus, the impugned order is a lawful exercise of jurisdiction and does not in any manner contravene the earlier order dated 30.09.2022. As regards the petitioner’s contention that only Headmasters of Middle Schools are eligible for the post of BRC, it is submitted that the relevant guidelines do not support such a narrow interpretation. Condition No. 1 of the Guideline dated 16.09.2005, as well as Clause 1 of the Guideline dated 22.09.2015 (Annexure P/4), clearly prescribe that both 10 Headmasters and Lecturers are eligible for selection to the post of BRC. Under the 2019 Recruitment and Promotion Rules also, both posts are Class-II and treated as equivalent for such purposes. Respondent No. 6, therefore, satisfies the eligibility criteria and his posting as BRC is fully legal and justified. He continues to hold the post and discharge duties accordingly. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order is wholly untenable, factually misconceived, and legally unsustainable. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully examined the pleadings, documents, and relevant guidelines governing the post of Block Resource Coordinator (BRC) under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. 7. The controversy essentially revolves around whether the petitioner possesses any enforceable right to continue on the additional charge of BRC, and whether respondent No. 3 acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 17.04.2023. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the original order assigning additional charge of Block Resource Coordinator, Korba, to the petitioner was issued by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. This assignment was made purely as an additional administrative arrangement without altering the substantive service position of the petitioner. The impugned order, which is the subject matter of 11 challenge, was passed by the Collector-cum-District Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha, Korba. Thus, the two orders are traceable to different authorities functioning under different administrative capacities. 9. A careful reading of the relevant scheme, particularly the Guidelines dated 03.09.2015, shows that the post of BRC is not a substantive or cadre post. It is a Scheme-based position that operates as an additional charge, intended for administrative convenience. Clause 2 of the said Guidelines specifically empowers the District Mission Director to make necessary administrative arrangements, including assigning or modifying additional charges under the BRC/BRP framework. In this background, it becomes clear that the petitioner’s entitlement to act as BRC does not stem from any statutory right but merely from a temporary administrative assignment. 10. The substantive post of the petitioner is that of Headmaster. Any additional charge, including the one relating to BRC, does not create or confer any vested or legally enforceable right to continue in such position. The law is well settled that an employee cannot claim a right over a temporary arrangement or additional duty which is subject to administrative exigencies. Such temporary postings neither modify the service conditions of the employee nor grant any permanent advantage. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim protection under Article 226 of the Constitution against the withdrawal or alteration of an additional charge. 12 11. As regards the competence of respondent No. 3, the Collector- cum-District Mission Director under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme is the highest District-level authority empowered to take administrative decisions involving additional charges and placements under the Scheme. The petitioner’s contention that only the State Government could have altered the earlier order dated 30.09.2022 does not hold merit, especially when the post involved is not a deputation post in the strict statutory sense but a Scheme-based functional position subject to administrative control of the District Mission Director. Thus, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or in contravention of any statutory rule. 12. Further, from the return filed by the State, it has been brought on record that both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 have subsequently been promoted and are presently posted at different places. The petitioner has already assumed charge at the promotional post of Head Master, Government Middle School, Andhrikachar, and respondent No. 6 has also been posted as Principal. Therefore, the circumstances that gave rise to the present petition have ceased to exist, rendering the very foundation of the petition infructuous. Courts have consistently held that where the dispute has lost its live character due to subsequent events, no useful purpose is served in adjudicating the matter on merits. 13. It is also pertinent to observe that the additional charge of BRC is purely administrative in nature and is not intended to confer any 13 permanency upon the incumbent. Thus, even assuming that the petitioner was earlier assigned the duties of BRC by the State Government, the continuation of that additional charge was always subject to administrative exigencies and to the control of the competent district-level authority under the Scheme. On this ground also, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 14. In view of the foregoing analysis, the it clearly emerge that the post of BRC is not a substantive post; it is only an additional charge under the Scheme. The petitioner has no vested or legally enforceable right to continue on such additional charge. The Collector-cum-District Mission Director is duly empowered under Guideline dated 03.09.2015 to issue the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or legal infirmity. Subsequent promotions and changed factual circumstances render the petition infructuous. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 passed by respondent No. 3. 15. The writ petition, being bereft of merit and having been rendered infructuous by subsequent developments, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge