1 2025:CGHC:60201-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 915 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.) ... Appellant(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 Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.12 10:41:48 +0530 2 Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 11.12.2025 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. 12210 of 2025 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “3.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court in WPS no. 12210/2025, in the interest of justice. 3.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the office of the respondent no. 1 in respect of respondent no. 5 and also issue the writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 3 and direct him to amend the place of posting of the Appellant from the post of Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School Dargaon Block Dhamdha Distt. Durg (CG) to the post of In-Charge Block Education Officer Durg Distt. Durg (CG), in the interest of Justice. 3 3.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 13.08.1982, later promoted as Upper Division Teacher on 18.08.2008, and thereafter as Lecturer. By order dated 30.09.2022, he was posted as In-charge Block Education Officer, Durg. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 suspended him on 02.06.2025 on the allegation that he created false documents to prevent his wife, Smt. Kumudani Sao, from being declared surplus. The appellant submitted representations denying the allegations. Despite the 2019 Rules designating the Director as the appointing authority respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 revoking suspension but posting the appellant as Lecturer, instead of restoring him as In- charge Block Education Officer. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 simultaneously posted respondent No. 5 on the appellant’s post. The appellant is due to retire shortly. He preferred writ petition which was dismissed, 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 6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is 4 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 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.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suspension order dated 02.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 was based on false allegations that the appellant had fabricated documents to protect his wife, Smt. Kumudani Sao, from being declared as a surplus teacher, whereas the District Level Rationalization Committee itself found that she was not excess. It is contended that the said suspension order was appealable before respondent 5 No. 1, yet respondent No. 3, without any authority, decided the appellant’s own appeal and passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2025, thereby acting without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that although the appellant was working as In-charge Block Education Officer, his reinstatement was illegally made on the post of Lecturer instead of restoring him to his original post, solely to accommodate respondent No. 5. Counsel argues that the appellant is due to retire shortly, and altering his posting at the fag end of service is arbitrary. It is also urged that, as per settled service law, an employee suspended from a particular post must ordinarily be reinstated on the same post, and any subsequent transfer must be made by the competent authority, i.e., respondent No. 2. These aspects were not considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the aforesaid submission made and submits that the appellants substantive post is Lecturer and he was only given charge of Block Education Officer. It is further submitted that reinstatement on the same post is neither a statutory right nor an absolute rule, and posting the appellant as Lecturer was a valid administrative choice made in the interest of the department, especially considering the sensitive 6 nature of the allegations. The posting of the appellant was carried out strictly on administrative grounds, without any intention to accommodate respondent No. 5. The appellant’s impending retirement, it is argued, has no bearing on the legality of the decision, and the competent authorities are fully empowered to issue transfer or posting orders at any stage of service. It is also urged that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and law, and has passed a well-reasoned order not warranting interference in appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having considered the submissions of the parties and on due perusal of the records, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. It is undisputed that the substantive post of the appellant is that of Lecturer and his posting as In-charge Block Education Officer was only by way of an additional charge. In view of the settled position of law that no employee has a vested right to hold or continue on a non-substantive or officiating post, the authorities were well within their competence to withdraw the charge and to post the appellant back to his substantive post, particularly after revocation of suspension. The allegation of lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No. 3 is also unfounded, as the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 is administrative in nature and has been passed in the 7 interest of the department. No material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation that the posting of respondent No. 5 was done to accommodate him or that the decision suffers from mala fides. The impending retirement of the appellant, by itself, does not confer any right to continuity on the officiating post. 9. 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. 10. 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