1 2026:CGHC:14180-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 254 of 2026 1 - Devkant Gajpal S/o Laxman Singh Gajpal Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Master, R/o Ward No.08, Infront Of Diet, Budhadevpara Nagri, Tehsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Public Instructions (Dpi) Through- Its Director Indravati Bhawan, Naya, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Joint Director School Education Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - District Education Officer District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 5 - Block Education Officer Block- Nagri District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sibashish Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, A.A.G. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.01 10:57:30 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sibashish Mishra, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the Respondent/ State. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1551/2026. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1551 of 2026(Devkant Gajpal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) (Annexure A/1) (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A/2) issued by the respondent Joint Director, School Education Division, Raipur, only to the limited extent of the place of posting of the appellant at Government Middle School, Sagada, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband while leaving the promotion of the 3 appellant to the post of Head Master (Middle School) intact and unaffected. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to post the appellant on the post of Head Master (Middle School) against any one of the vacant posts available within Block Nagri, District Dhamtari, as reflected in the vacancy list issued by the Block Education Officer, Nagri, (Annexure A/8) and existing on the date of counselling, in accordance with the policy dated 29.10.2025 issued by the Deputy Director, Public Education, Chhattisgarh. (iv) That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the appellant;” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working in the respondent-department on the post of Teacher (LB) from the year 2007 and was posted at the Government Middle School, Chipli, Block: Nagri,District: Dhamtari (C.G.). Despite the fact that he is fully eligible and suitable to promotional post, his candidature has not been considered, thereafter, the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons preferred WPS No. 239 of 2026 before this Court which has been disposed of on 12.01.2026 granting liberty to the petitioner therein to pursue their pending representation. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent authorities conducted a counseling for promotion to the post of Head Master (Middle School) and in that process, the petitioners' 4 candidature has been considered and granted promotion to the post of Head Master by order dated 22.01.2026 and the authorities given the posting of the petitioner at Government Middle School, Sagada, Block: Mainpur, District: Gariyaband. Against the promotion and posting order dated 22.01.2026, the petitioner has filed a writ petitioner bearing WPS No. 1551/2026 before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law as it overlooks the appellant’s specific and substantial grievance that the counselling dated 22.01.2026 was conducted in clear violation of the mandatory policy dated 29.10.2025, particularly Clause 3(5), which requires disclosure of the complete vacancy position. The respondent authorities deliberately suppressed multiple vacant posts in Block Nagri and disclosed only one post, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair and meaningful opportunity to exercise his option, while simultaneously adopting an impermissible pick-and-choose method by selectively filling undisclosed vacancies such as those at Koremuda and Kumhrakot. The appellant was called at a later stage of counselling, and his representation was not decided prior to issuance of the posting order dated 22.01.2026 posting him outside his block despite availability of vacancies therein. Such 5 arbitrary, non-transparent and discriminatory action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, vitiates the entire counselling process, and renders the consequential posting order liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants no interference as the vacancies displayed during counselling were based on verified and consolidated data received from the competent authorities, and only such posts which were duly available for allotment under the applicable criteria were included; there is no mandate to display posts proposed for adjustment at the same place or otherwise not open for general choice. The appellant was duly considered, called for counselling, and granted promotion, and thereafter posted on an available vacancy in accordance with administrative exigencies. It is further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, as there is no vested right to claim posting at a particular place, and the plea of discrimination is unfounded in absence of any similarly situated person being treated more favourably. The representation submitted by the appellant does not create any enforceable right and, in any case, cannot invalidate a duly conducted counselling process. Thus, the action of the respondents being fair, reasonable, and in conformity with the governing framework, the present appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 6 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that:- 4. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has duly been considered and granted promotion to the post of Head Master (MiddleSchool). After granting promotion by the impugned order, the petitioner has been posted on the promotional post at Government Middle School Sagada, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband. Hence, the posting of the petitioner in the promotional order cannot be termed as illegal. 5. It is established law that the officers/employees can be posted at any place as per the availability of post and on the basis of administrative exigency. Thus, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner. Therefore, the impugned order is just and proper and there is no illegality in the said posting order. 6. In view of above, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself 8. From perusal of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition after duly considering that the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Head Master (Middle School) and was accordingly posted at Government Middle School Sagada, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband, and therefore no illegality can be attributed to the posting order. It is a settled principle of service law that an employee has no vested 7 right to seek posting at a particular place, and transfers/postings are matters of administrative discretion based on availability of vacancies and exigencies of service. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rules or mala fide exercise of power, and mere dissatisfaction with the place of posting does not render the order arbitrary or illegal. Hence, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that the impugned order is just and proper, and the petition, being devoid of merit, has been rightly dismissed at the motion stage. 9. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika