1 CGHC010434252025 2026:CGHC:31039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11881 of 2025 Manish Kumar S/o Shri Biraman Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur, District Surguja 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 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Manoj Kumar, Lecturer (Geography), Posted On The Option Of Assistant Director At DIET, Ambikapur, Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21.07.2026 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.24 11:37:04 +0530 2 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No. 3, who is a Lecturer has been given the charge of Block Education Officer, Manpat, District Surajpur (C.G.). 2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Block Education Officer vide order dated 26.09.2015 and, thereafter, was transferred and posted as In-charge Block Education Officer, Lundra vide order dated 10.07.2025, pursuant to which he joined on 10.09.2025 and has since been discharging his duties. He further submits that under the same impugned transfer order, respondent No.3, who belongs to the teaching cadre and is working as a Lecturer, was transferred from DIET to Lundra. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 had earlier approached this Court and, during the proceedings, this Court observed that a Lecturer cannot be posted as In-charge Block Education Officer, whereafter the writ petition was withdrawn. (b) Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid observation, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 29.09.2025, transferring the petitioner within a short span of his joining only to accommodate respondent No.3 as In-charge Block Education Officer, Lundra. He submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, mala fide and in violation of Clause 3.9 of the 3 Transfer Policy, 2025, which prohibits transfer of an employee before completion of one year at the place of posting. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned transfer order be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as the counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions advanced by the petitioner and would submit that the impugned transfer order has been passed purely on account of administrative exigency by the competent authority. Learned counsel would submit that transfer is an incident of service and no Government servant can claim a vested right to continue at a particular place of posting. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the Transfer Policy, 2025 by approaching the Transfer Redressal Committee, which he has not availed. Learned counsel would also submit that the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 has been issued in administrative exigency, whereby the petitioner has merely been transferred from one block to another within the same district. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned transfer order suffers from neither arbitrariness nor mala fides and, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Block Education Officer in the year 2015, which is an 4 administrative cadre post. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 substantively holds the post of Lecturer, which falls under the teaching cadre. The controversy involved in the present case is whether a person belonging to the teaching cadre can be entrusted with the charge of the post of In-charge Block Education Officer, which is an administrative post. 6. A perusal of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 makes it evident that the post of Block Education Officer is an administrative cadre post. The Schedule appended to the Rules further provides that the said post is to be filled either by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Block Education Officer or from the eligible cadre of Principal, in the prescribed ratio. Admittedly, respondent No.3 is neither an Assistant Block Education Officer nor a Principal and, therefore, does not belong to the feeder cadre prescribed under the Rules. 7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record and the statutory provisions, this Court finds that respondent No.3, who admittedly belongs to the teaching cadre, has been entrusted with the charge of In-charge Block Education Officer, Lundra, despite not being eligible under the Rules, 2026. Such an action is inconsistent with the statutory provisions regulating appointments to administrative posts. 5 8. The contention made by the respondents that the impugned order has been passed on administrative exigency cannot override the statutory provisions. While transfer is undoubtedly an incident of service, administrative exigency cannot be invoked to appoint or post a person to a post for which he is otherwise ineligible under the governing statutory Rules. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 2026 and the statutory framework, and therefore cannot be sustained in law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P/1), to the extent it posts respondent No.3 as In-charge Block Education Officer, Lundra, is hereby quashed. However, it shall be open to the State Government to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and the applicable statutory Rules, if so advised. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar/ Ashu