1 2026:CGHC:25839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4589 of 2026 1 - Jayant Sahu S/o Shri Dukhuram Sahu Aged About 51 Years Working As In-Charge Block Ward No. 3, Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Shri Kamleshwar Kumar Dewangan Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Bholapur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitenedra Pali with Aniket Verma, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. For Respondent/Caveator : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 24.06.2026 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.06.24 17:59:43 +0530 2 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to quash the impugned order dated 10/06/2026 (Annexure P-1), by which, the respondent No.4 has been posted in the present place of posting of the petitioner by giving the charge of Block Education Officer and also seeking, that the petitioner be allowed to continue as In-charge Block Education Officer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original posting of the petitioner is Assistant Block Education Officer (administrative cadre) and vide order dated 27/02/2026 Annexure P-5, the petitioner is having the charge of Block Education Officer, Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner is already in the charge of Block Education Officer but by the impugned order Annexure P-1, respondent No. 4 has been posted in the present place of posting of the petitioner and assigned the charge of Block Education Officer, despite the fact that respondent No. 4 is holding the post of Lecturer (Teaching cadre) at Government Higher Secondary School, Bholapur, District Rajnandgaon. Moreover, there is no transfer order of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the next promotional post of the petitioner is Block Education Officer and as per the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (for short, the Rules, 2026), 75% of the Block Education Officer has to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Block Education Officers. 3 Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.4 who has been posted in the place of the petitioner is much junior to the petitioner and even not in the cadre of the Assistant Block Education Officer. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that due to administrative exigency, the lecturers are being posted as incharge B.E.O and there is no illegality in the order impugned. Learned counsel further submits that the District Education Officer has assigned the charge of Block Education Officer to the petitioner, however, the said order has been superseded by posting of the respondent No.4 to the present place of posting of the petitioner as a Block Education Officer. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the order Annexure P-5 dated 27/02/2026, it is manifest that the petitioner has been assigned the work of Block Education Officer and the petitioner belongs to the cadre of Assistant Block Education Officer. According to the Rules, 2026, 75% posts of the Block Education Officer has to be filled up by promotion from the post of Assistant Block Education Officer, however, the person junior to him who is not even in the cadre of Assistant Block Education Officer, is being posted in the present place of posting of the petitioner by giving the charge of Block Education Officer and 4 even there is no order as far as the petitioner’s posting, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is liable to be and is hereby quashed. 6. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition is allowed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep