1 CGHC010273812026 2026:CGHC:30354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5429 of 2026 Harishankar Joshi S/o Budharu Lal Joshi Aged About 56 Years Occupation Principal P.M. Shri Swami Atmanand Excellent English Medium Govt. Higher Secondary School Lavan District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. R/o Shri Hari Niwas, Behind Radha Swami Satsang Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director Public Instruction Department Directorate Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Joint Director Education Division Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - District Education Officer, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. 5 - Sandeep Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Prasad Sharma Aged About 56 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.07.17 18:23:22 +0530 2 Years Occupation In Charge District Education Officer, District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate For Respondent/State :Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate For Intervenor :Shri Amrito Das, Senior Advocate along with Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 10-06- 2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no. 1 to the extent that it gives charge of the post of District Education officer to private Respondent no. 5, for being violative of Chhattisgarh School Education Services (educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 read with standing Circular dated 04/08/2011, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 15/06/2026 and consider him to entrust the charge of the post of 3 District Education Officer, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) to the petitioner till there is regular appointment to the post of District Education Officer, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), considering the seniority of the petitioner as per the gradation list dated 28/03/2025, & Rules, 2016. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play..” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently working as Principal in the P.M. shri Swami Atmanand Excellent Engish Medium Govt. Higher Secondary School, Lavan, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.). According to the petitioner, in the State level seniority list of Principals and Block Education Officers, the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 980, whereas the name of the respondent No. 5 does not find place in the said seniority list. He would submit that the respondent No. 5 is much junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Principal and has not acquired comparable experience or seniority. In fact the respondent No. 5 was promoted on the post of Principal by order dated 30.04.2025 i.e. after publication of the gradation list dated 28.03.2025 as on 01.04.2023. Despite the said fact, the charge 4 of District Education Officer District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara has been given to the respondent No. 5 by order dated 10.06.2026, wherein the name of the respondent No. 5 is at serial no. 9. The impugned action is contrary to the circular dated 04.08.2011, 16.05.2012, 07.02.2013 and 14.07.2014, wherein it has been directed to all the department not to give the charge of higher posts to the junior ignoring the senior officers. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner and would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authorities after considering all the aspects of the matter and that too after obtaining due coordination. 4. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are working as Principal. The petitioner promoted to the post of Principal by order dated 04.06.2016, wherein his name is at serial No. 18. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 promoted to the post of Principal on 30.04.2025. From the said fact, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is much senior 5 to the respondent No. 5. 6. The State Government vide Circular dated 04.08.2011, 16.05.2012, 07.02.2013 and 14.07.2014 directed all the departments of the state government not to give the charge of higher post to the juniors ignoring the senior officer. 7. It would be apt to quote relevant part of the circular dated 14.07.2014 for ready reference, which reads thus:- " सामान्य प्रशासान वि भाग के सादर्भिभात परिपत्र द्वा यह विनदशा प्रदन विकेए गए ह विके वि भाग मा रिक्त रिष्ठ पद के चालू# प्रभा सा ग$ के रिष्ठ अधि'केरिय के( वि)न विकेसा* य+क्तिक्तय+क्त प्रशासाके-य केण सा )ईपसा केत हुए केविनष्ठ अधि'केरिय के( न सा1प जाए। उक्त ज्ञापन मा यह भा* विनदशा दिदए गए ह विके जिजान वि भाग मा इसा तह के केविनष्ठ अधि'के* रिष्ठ पद के प्रभा मा ह, उन्ह प्रशासाके-य वि भाग / वि भागध्यक्ष द्वा तत्केलू भामा+क्त विकेय जाके रिष्ठ ए  य(ग्य अधि'केरिय के( ह* प्रमा दिदय जाए। 2/ उप(क्त विनदशा के अन+पलून सा+विनश्चि>त केन हत+ सामाय- सामाय प सामान्य प्रशासान वि भाग के सामासाख्यके ज्ञापन दिदनके 16.5.2012 ए  7.2.2013 द्वा विनदशा भा* जा* विकेए गए ह। 3/ मा साभा* वि भाग*य साचिचा / वि भागध्यक्ष सा यह अपक्ष केत हूं विके उप(क्त विनदशा के केड़ाई सा पलून केन सा+विनश्चि>त विकेय जाए। वि शाषके त$मान स्थानतण न*वित के तहत वि भाग मा विकेए जान लू स्थानतण के द1न उप(क्त विनदशा के उल्लूघन के- क्तिस्थावित विनर्मिमात नहH ह(न* चाविहए, अन्यथा इसाके चिलूए सा)धि'त वि भाग*य साचिचा जिजाम्माद हग।" 8. Having considered the entire fact situation of the case and particularly considering the fact that the charge of District 6 Education Officer has been given to respondent No. 5, who is much junior to the petitioner and the same is contrary to the circular dated 04.08.2011, 16.05.2012, 07.02.2013 and 14.07.2014. I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, (Annexure P/1) passed in respect of respondent No. 5, is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities, however, are at liberty to pass appropriate order in respect of giving the charge of District Education Officer Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara to the appropriate Officer. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Shoaib