1 2026:CGHC:27050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4815 of 2026 Munnu Singh Dhurve S/o Shri Gulab Singh Aged About 46 Years Assistant Block- Education Officer, Presently Incharge Block- Education Officer Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Ministry Of Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary School Education Ministry Of Education Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Public Education Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.) 4 - Arun Kumar Pandey, Lecturer English Government Higher Secondary School Basdei Block- District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Sameer Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Chandra and Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocates For Respondent/State :Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.02 18:14:22 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 4 :Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi and Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner, who is appointed as Assistant Block Education Officer and presently working as In- charge Block Education Officer, Pratappur, is seeking quashment of the order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No. 4, who is a Lecturer has been given the charge of Block Education Officer, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.). 2. (a) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer by order dated 26.09.2015. The said post is an administrative post as per the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (for short ‘the Rules, 2026’). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even the petitioner is eligible to hold the post of Block Education Officer, however since the regular DPC was not convened, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Assistant Block Education Officer. 3 (b) According to the petitioner, vide order dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure-P/3), the petitioner was made In-charge Block Education Officer Pratappur and since then he is discharging his duties with honesty and sincerity, however all of a sudden by the order impugned, the respondent no. 4 who is a Lecturer in the teaching cadre and posted as Govt. Higher Secondary School, Basdei, District Surajpur (C.G.), has been given the charge of Block Education Officer, Pratappur. (c) Learned counsel would submit that the order impugned is in violation of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act, 2009’) as also the Rules 2026. He would submit that respondent No. 4 is admittedly appointed as a Lecturer and, as such, his posting as an Incharge Block Education Officer is illegal and arbitrary and the same is not sustainable. He would submit that Section 27 of the Act 2009 categorically provides that the teachers comprising of the teaching cadre cannot be engaged in the administrative cadre posts. 3. (i) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as also the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (ii) Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 4 would submit that the post of Block Education Officer, Pratappur falls 4 within the Scheduled Area and, under the relevant service rules, only an officer belonging to the T Cadre is eligible to hold the said post. He submits that the petitioner belongs to the E Cadre and, therefore, has no legal right to claim charge of the said post. It is further contended that the impugned order assigning charge to respondent No.4 has been passed in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and Government instructions and does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner appointed as Assistant Block Education Officer in the year 2015, which is an administrative cadre post, whereas the original post of the respondent No.4 is Lecturer (T). According to the Rules, 2026, the post of Assistant Block Education Officer is of administrative cadre, whereas the post of Lecturer is of teaching cadre. Thus, the superior authorities should refrain themselves from posting Government servants of teaching cadre to the post of administrative cadre. 6. From bare perusal of the schedule appended to the rules, it is quite vivid that the post of Block Education Officer can be filled either by deputation or by promotion. 75% posts can be filled by promotion of Assistant Block Education Officer and 25% posts shall be filled by E and T cadre Principals according to their cadre 5 posts. The respondent no. 4 is neither the Principal nor Assistant Block Education Officer, therefore he cannot be given the charge of the post of Block Education Officer. 7. As regards the submission advanced on behalf of respondent No.4 that the petitioner, being an employee of the E Cadre, is not entitled to hold the post of Block Education Officer in a Scheduled Area as the said post belongs to the T Cadre, this Court finds no merit in the said contention. The controversy involved in the present case is not with regard to inter se claims between the E Cadre and the T Cadre, but whether a person belonging to the teaching cadre can be entrusted with the charge of an administrative post. The Rules, 2026 clearly classify the post of Block Education Officer as an administrative cadre post, whereas respondent No.4 substantively holds the post of Lecturer in the teaching cadre. Further, Section 27 of the Act, 2009 mandates that teachers shall not be deployed for non-educational purposes except in the contingencies specified therein. Therefore, irrespective of the cadre distinction sought to be projected by respondent No.4, entrustment of the charge of Block Education Officer to a Lecturer is contrary to the statutory scheme governing the field and cannot be sustained. 8. Upon a cumulative consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record and the statutory scheme governing the field, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is not disputed that the petitioner is 6 holding the post of Assistant Block Education Officer, which forms part of the administrative cadre, whereas respondent No.4 belongs to the teaching cadre and is substantively holding the post of Lecturer. The material placed on record further reveals that respondent No.4 does not substantively hold any post in the administrative hierarchy. 9. The statutory framework governing appointments and postings in the Education Department clearly maintains a distinction between the teaching cadre and the administrative cadre. Such distinction has been consciously recognized to ensure that administrative posts are to be filled by officers possessing the requisite experience and eligibility within the prescribed cadre. The action of the respondents in entrusting the charge of the post of Block Education Officer to respondent No.4, who admittedly belongs to the teaching cadre, is therefore contrary to the scheme of the Rules and amounts to permitting a person outside the feeder channel and prescribed cadre to occupy an administrative post. 10. The assignment of duties attached to the post of Block Education Officer, which is essentially an administrative post, to a member of the teaching cadre runs contrary to the legislative intent underlying the said provision. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, insofar as it entrusts respondent No.4 with the charge of the post of Block Education Officer, is found to be unsustainable and 7 contrary to the governing statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar