1 CGHC010227312026 2026:CGHC:36947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4567 of 2026 Satya Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Fatte Lal Sahu, Aged About 58 Years Working As In-Charge Block Education O$cer, R/o Village And Post Paoni, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shri Ram Kumar Kosale, Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Hardi, Block Sarangarh, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3: Shri Amit Matre, Advocate SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.08.19 10:25:12 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been transferred from the post of In- charge Block Education O$cer, Bilaigarh and posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Jora, Block Bilaigarh, as well as the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/2), whereby respondent No. 3 has been entrusted with the current charge of Block Education O$cer, Bilaigarh in place of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in the year 2008 and is undisputedly senior to respondent No. 3, who was promoted as Lecturer in the year 2013 and was subsequently absorbed in the School Education Department with e?ect from 01.07.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner has been granted the time-scale/pay- 3 scale admissible to the post of Principal and is otherwise eligible for consideration for promotion to the said post. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been entrusted with the current charge of Block Education O$cer and had been discharging the said duties for a considerable period. The petitioner has also been entrusted with various administrative responsibilities on earlier occasions. It is contended that there is no allegation, adverse material or pending disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner which could justify overlooking his seniority and suitability while entrusting the current charge of the post of Block Education O$cer to respondent No. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 04.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, relating to entrustment of current charge of higher posts. It is submitted that the said circular speciCcally requires that the criterion of seniority-cum-eligibility be followed while entrusting current charge and that junior o$cers should not be entrusted with such charge by bypassing senior o$cers without any reasonable administrative justiCcation. 4 5. Learned State counsel, as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, have opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to continue on the current charge of Block Education O$cer and that transfer and posting are incidents of service. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 is eligible and suitable to be entrusted with the current charge and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. It is contended that the impugned orders have been passed in administrative exigency and in accordance with the applicable policy and that no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 3 in the cadre of Lecturer. The petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in the year 2008, whereas respondent No. 3 was promoted as Lecturer in the year 2013 and was subsequently absorbed in the School 5 Education Department with seniority reckoned from 01.07.2018. 8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of the Circular dated 04.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which reads as under: “1. य सन यन यह आय ह प / स प प य!य "य#य $%& य' स(पन ) प* न अपन स,' न अ- य . य / ह। यह 123 न'ण अ5य- ह, /ह, न अ- प . %,6 सय स 7हण ए ह9ए ह:। ; छ 02 स 04 =' य प स ) 6ठ आय-/ प प ) प&' नह? ) य औ न ह स य स प ) प&' -%ए .यस ए ए ह:। 2. अA यह नB ए / ह: प प $%& . स(पन अनय'A -सह-य!य पCड अपनय /ए, 3 / अ- प $ण E F आ ह ह: अGय पCड अन;स प -%ए स'3 उपय;# ह: उGह ह $%& . स(प /ए। I 6 ऊप अ- य 6न स य;#य;# .स )य ण स 6ईपस ह9ए न अ- य य' न स(प /ए। 3. -/न इस ह न अ- प . ह:, उGह .स )य / यE 5 % ;# औ ए, य!य अ- य ह . । 4. इन नB Mई स प%न स;न1N$ य /ए।” 9. The relevant Circular dated 04.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department provides that while entrusting current charge of a higher post, the criterion of seniority-cum-eligibility is required to be followed and that junior o$cers should not be entrusted with such charge by bypassing senior o$cers without any reasonable administrative ground. 10. In the present case, neither the State nor respondent No. 3 has pointed out any allegation, charge, adverse material or disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner which could constitute a justiCable ground for overlooking his seniority and eligibility. On the contrary, the petitioner had already been entrusted with the current charge of Block Education 7 O$cer and had been discharging the duties attached to the said post. 11. The respondents have sought to justify the entrustment of current charge to respondent No. 3 primarily on the ground of his eligibility, suitability and Scheduled Caste status. However, the respondents have not disclosed any speciCc administrative exigency or cogent and reasonable ground which warranted bypassing the petitioner, who is admittedly senior to respondent No. 3 and otherwise eligible, while entrusting the current charge of the higher post. 12. It is true that entrustment of current charge of a higher post does not confer any vested or indefeasible right upon an employee to continue on such charge. Likewise, transfer and posting are ordinarily matters within the administrative domain of the employer. However, such administrative discretion is required to be exercised fairly, reasonably and consistently with the guidelines and policy framed by the State itself. Where the State has prescribed a speciCc norm for entrustment of current charge and the senior o$cer is 8 bypassed in favour of a substantially junior o$cer, the deviation must have a reasonable and justiCable basis. 13. In the facts of the present case, no such reason has been disclosed by the respondents. The material placed before this Court does not indicate any circumstance which would justify bypassing the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 3. The action of the respondents, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the speciCc stipulation contained in the Circular dated 04.08.2011. 14. Consequently, the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/2), whereby respondent No. 3 has been entrusted with the current charge of Block Education O$cer, Bilaigarh, is contrary to the aforesaid Circular dated 04.08.2011 and is liable to be set aside. 15. Since the transfer of the petitioner under Annexure P/1 and the entrustment of current charge of Block Education O$cer to respondent No. 3 under Annexure P/2 are part of the same transaction, the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it displaces the petitioner from the charge of Block Education O$cer, Bilaigarh, is also liable to be interfered with. 9 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed. 17. The respondents shall pass a fresh order regarding entrustment of the current charge of Block Education O$cer, Bilaigarh, strictly in accordance with the Circular dated 04.08.2011 and the applicable policy, keeping in view the seniority-cum-eligibility of the o$cers concerned and the observations made hereinabove, if so desired. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE shoaib