1 CGHC010238542026 2026:CGHC:31040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4741 of 2026 Ms. Bhavani Punem D/o Late P.Nagaiya Aged About 47 Years R/o Qte No.H-3 Gad Colony, Near Govt. Hospital, Geedam, Tahsil -Geedam, Distt. -South Bastar (Dantewada) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District -Raipur C.G. 2 - Additional Secretary, Additional Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District -Raipur C.G. 3 - Director, Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Nav Raipur, Distt. -Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, South Bastar Dantewada, Distt -South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) 5 - Ankit Gupta -Lecturer (LB), Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chhindnar, Tahsil -Geedam, Distt -South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA For Respondent No.5 : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is holding the substantive post of Assistant Block Education Officer and presently having the charge of Block ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.22 10:34:55 +0530 2 Education Officer, Geedam, District Dantewada, has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 10.06.2026 issued by the Department of School Education whereby respondent No.5, who is substantively holding the post of Lecturer (LB) (T-Cadre) and is presently working as In-charge Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Chhindnar, has been entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer, Geedam, District Dantewada. 2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Block Education Officer by order dated 26.09.2015 and is substantively holding the said post, which forms part of the Administrative Cadre under the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (for short, "the Rules of 2026"). It is submitted that after suspension of the then In-charge Block Education Officer, the petitioner was entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer, Geedam by order dated 23.06.2025 and has been discharging the said duties with sincerity and devotion. He would further submit that though subsequently the earlier incumbent was reinstated, the petitioner continued to function pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and thereafter, all of a sudden, by the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, respondent No.5, who is admittedly a Lecturer belonging to the Teaching Cadre, has been given the charge of Block Education Officer, Geedam. He would further submit that the action of the respondents is ex facie contrary to the statutory provisions governing the field. (b) Referring to the Rules of 2026, learned counsel submits that the 3 post of Assistant Block Education Officer belongs exclusively to the Administrative Cadre and constitutes the feeder post for promotion to the post of Block Education Officer. On the other hand, respondent No.5 belongs to the Teaching Cadre and is substantively holding the post of Lecturer. According to the petitioner, the statutory scheme consciously maintains a distinction between the Teaching Cadre and the Administrative Cadre and such distinction cannot be obliterated by assigning administrative charge to a person outside the prescribed cadre. (c) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Schedule-II of the Rules of 2026, 75% posts of Block Education Officer are to be filled by promotion from Assistant Block Education Officers, whereas the remaining 25% are to be filled from Principals of E and T Cadres in accordance with the Rules. Respondent No.5 is admittedly neither an Assistant Block Education Officer nor a substantive Principal and, therefore, does not fall within the zone of consideration for holding the post of Block Education Officer even in an in-charge capacity. It is further argued that respondent No.5 is merely holding the charge of Principal and substantively continues as Lecturer (LB). The promotional avenue of a Lecturer is to the post of Principal, whereas the promotional avenue of an Assistant Block Education Officer is to the post of Block Education Officer. Thus, the Rules create two distinct channels and the respondents have illegally permitted a person belonging to one channel to occupy a post earmarked for another cadre. (d) Learned counsel also places reliance upon the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, 4 particularly Section 27, to contend that teachers cannot ordinarily be deployed for non-educational duties except in the contingencies specifically provided therein. Entrusting a Lecturer with the charge of Block Education Officer, which is essentially an administrative assignment, runs contrary to the legislative mandate as well as the scheme of the Recruitment Rules. 3. (e) It is further submitted that respondent No.5 is junior to the petitioner and even otherwise the Government circulars governing assignment of current charge require that such charge should ordinarily be entrusted to the senior eligible officer who falls within the promotional channel. The petitioner, therefore, had a legitimate expectation to continue on the post till a regular arrangement was made strictly in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar Gautam vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No.4582 of 2026 decided on 23.06.2026), wherein this Court has held that a Lecturer belonging to the Teaching Cadre cannot be entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer in derogation of the statutory Recruitment Rules. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. (A) Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order has been issued by the competent authority in 5 administrative interest and keeping in view the cadre position prevailing in District Dantewada. Learned State counsel further submits that the post of Block Education Officer, Geedam is earmarked for the Tribal (T) Cadre, whereas admittedly the petitioner belongs to the Education (E) Cadre. It is, therefore, submitted that even if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that respondent No.5, being a Lecturer, could not have been entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer in view of the Recruitment Rules, liberty may be reserved in favour of the State Government to pass an appropriate fresh order in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, cadre position and the prevailing administrative exigencies. (B) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 questioned the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to continue on the post of In-charge Block Education Officer. It is argued that the petitioner is merely questioning an administrative arrangement and has failed to establish infringement of any enforceable legal or statutory right. Therefore, according to him, no writ of certiorari or mandamus deserves to be issued in the facts of the present case. (C) Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would further submit that since respondent No.5 belongs to the T-Cadre, the competent authority has rightly entrusted him with the charge of the said post. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that under the Rules of 2026 there are 100 posts of Block Education Officer belonging to Education (E) Cadre and 86 posts belonging to Tribal (T) Cadre. According to him, 6 since there exists no post of Assistant Block Education Officer in the Tribal (T) Cadre, promotion to the post of Block Education Officer in the Tribal Cadre cannot necessarily be confined to Assistant Block Education Officers belonging to Education Cadre. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings as well as the documents brought on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Block Education Officer. It is equally undisputed that respondent No.5 is substantively holding the post of Lecturer (LB) and presently discharging the duties of In-charge Principal. Thus, respondent No.5 admittedly belongs to the teaching cadre. 7. The controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. This Court, in Ravi Kumar Gautam (supra), while considering an identical issue relating to entrustment of the charge of Block Education Officer to a Lecturer belonging to the teaching cadre, has held that the statutory Rules maintain a clear distinction between the teaching cadre and the administrative cadre and that the superior authorities ought not to entrust an administrative post to a person belonging to the teaching cadre contrary to the statutory scheme. 8. The Recruitment Rules of 2026 clearly classify the services under different cadres and prescribe separate channels of promotion. The Schedule appended to the Rules further provides the source of recruitment to the post of Block Education Officer. The statutory scheme thus recognizes a conscious distinction between the teaching stream and 7 the administrative stream and such distinction cannot be ignored while making even an in-charge arrangement. 9. Though learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has attempted to justify the impugned order by contending that respondent No.5 belongs to the Tribal (T) Cadre and the post of Block Education Officer, Geedam is also a post borne on the Tribal Cadre, the said submission does not persuade this Court to uphold the impugned action. Merely because the post falls within a particular cadre would not authorize the respondents to entrust its charge to an employee who admittedly belongs to the teaching stream, when the statutory Rules prescribe a distinct method of filling up such post. 10. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that the post of Block Education Officer can be treated as interchangeable with the teaching posts. The duties attached to the office of Block Education Officer are essentially administrative in nature and the statutory framework has consciously maintained a distinction between educational functions discharged by teachers and administrative functions discharged by officers of the administrative hierarchy. 11. As noticed by this Court in Ravi Kumar Gautam (supra), the legislative intent underlying Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is that teachers should ordinarily not be diverted for non-educational duties except in the contingencies specifically recognized by the statute. Entrusting the charge of Block Education Officer to a Lecturer belonging to the teaching cadre runs 8 contrary to the spirit of the statutory scheme governing the field. 12. The objection regarding maintainability raised by respondent No.5 also deserves to be rejected. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner, who was discharging the duties of Block Education Officer, has been displaced and substituted by respondent No.5. The petitioner has thus demonstrated sufficient legal injury to question the legality of the impugned action. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be maintainable. 13. During the course of hearing, learned State counsel fairly submitted that the post of Block Education Officer, Geedam belongs to the Tribal (T) Cadre, whereas the petitioner belongs to the Education (E) Cadre. It is, therefore, prayed that in the event this Court interferes with the impugned order, liberty may be reserved in favour of the State Government to pass a fresh order in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the prevailing administrative exigencies. 14. This Court finds substance in the aforesaid submission to the limited extent that the competent authority cannot be denuded of its power to make an appropriate posting or in-charge arrangement strictly in accordance with law. The issue involved in the present writ petition is confined to the legality of entrusting the charge of Block Education Officer to respondent No.5, who admittedly belongs to the teaching cadre. This Court is not called upon to determine the inter se rights of officers belonging to the Education Cadre and the Tribal Cadre or the cadre allocation of the post itself. Therefore, while the impugned order 9 deserves to be interfered with, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty in favour of the competent authority to issue a fresh order in accordance with the statutory Rules, cadre requirements and administrative exigencies. 15. Upon cumulative consideration of the pleadings, the documents placed on record and the statutory provisions governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order, insofar as it entrusts respondent No.5, a Lecturer belonging to the teaching cadre, with the charge of the post of Block Education Officer, Geedam, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, insofar as it entrusts respondent No.5 with the charge of the post of Block Education Officer, Geedam, is hereby quashed. 16. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the State Government from issuing a fresh posting or in-charge order strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, the cadre to which the post belongs and the prevailing administrative exigencies. The liberty sought by the learned State counsel is accordingly granted. 17. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu