1 2026:CGHC:4842-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 55 of 2026 Hajarilal Chakradhari S/o Late Arjun Ram Aged About 52 Years Working On The Post Of Block Resource Coordinator Ramanujnagar, Block Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director State Project Office Samagra Siksha, 2nd Floor Chhattisgarh Secondary Education Board, Pension Bada Raipur, Distt. Raipur. 3 - District Collector Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer/director District Project Samagra Siksha Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Working On The Post Of Lecturer (Lb), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Krishnapur, Block Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5/State : Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.29 17:57:00 +0530 2 For Respondent No.2 & 4 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 3, 5 & 6/State as well as Ms. Ananksha Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 4 and Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 01.12.2025 (Hajarilal Chakradhari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8345 of 2024, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Facts of the case are that the appellant is substantively appointed as Lecturer (Mathematics). After obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the concerned Principal, the appellant was posted as Block Resource Coordinator, Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 28.04.2023. The appellant continuously discharged his duties on the said post 3 without any complaint during his tenure. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.12.2024, respondent No. 7 was posted as Block Resource Coordinator, Ramanujnagar, in place of the appellant, solely on the basis of a letter issued by the local MLA dated 04.11.2024. The appellant was thus displaced without any administrative exigency or valid justification. The substantive post of respondent No. 7 is Lecturer (Geography), and he was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Krishnapur, Block Ramanujnagar, where he was the sole teacher of Geography. As per Clause 3.1 of the State Government’s transfer policy, no transfer should result in a school becoming teacher-less or a single-teacher school. The posting of respondent No. 7 to the post held by the appellant is therefore illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the applicable transfer policy. The appellant is senior to respondent No. 7, as reflected in the seniority list wherein the appellant is placed at Serial No. 5015, whereas respondent No. 7 is placed at Serial No. 5051. Despite this, the appellant was replaced by a junior employee, which is unjust and improper. 4. Aggrieved by the posting order dated 11.12.2024, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, wherein an interim order dated 04.03.2025 was granted directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the appellant. However, vide impugned order dated 01.12.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after hearing the parties, giving rise to the present appeal. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4 is arbitrary and illegal, as respondent No. 7 has been posted in place of the appellant/petitioner solely on the basis of the letter issued by the local MLA, without any administrative necessity, only to accommodate respondent No. 7. He further submits that respondent No. 7 was the sole Lecturer of Geography at Government Higher Secondary School, Krishnapur, Block Ramanujnagar, and as per Clause 3.1 of the State Government transfer policy, no transfer can be made which results in a school becoming teacher-less or single-teacher based. Despite this clear prohibition, respondent No. 4 issued the posting order, which is contrary to the Government circular and therefore illegal and arbitrary. He also submits that respondent No. 7 is junior to the appellant, as reflected in the seniority list, yet a senior employee has been replaced by a junior without justification, which is unjust and against Government policy. Further, no NOC was obtained from the concerned school for posting respondent No. 7, whereas the appellant was posted only after obtaining the required NOC, which mandatory requirement was ignored by respondent No. 4 while passing the impugned order. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 3, 5 and 6/State opposes the submissions 5 made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ appellant / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was not regularly appointed as CAR or BRC but was substantively appointed as Lecturers, whose primary duty was to impart education in his respective schools. The Court found that despite the temporary assignment order clearly requiring the appointees to take at least three teaching periods per day, the appellant had deliberately failed to comply with this essential condition. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellant was only given additional charge for a fixed tenure, which in most cases had already expired, and therefore he had no vested or legal right to continue on the said posts after expiry of the assignment period. Since the posts of CAR/BRC were not substantive posts and no service condition of the appellant was adversely affected, the Court found no justification to interfere under writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents annexed with writ petition as 6 also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ appellant / appellant herein, 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/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu