1 CGHC010302192026 2026:CGHC:37092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5963 of 2026 Devendra Singh Kashyap S/o Late Dharam Singh Kashyap Aged About 52 Years Posted As Head Master Government Primary School, Bodeli Block Charama District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Jaisakarra, Awaspara, Near Main Road Government Primary School Jaisakarra, Tehsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Commissioner Cum Managing Director, State Project Office, Samagra, Shiksha, 2nd Floor, Composite Building C G B S E Building Campus Pension Bada Tagore Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, North Bastar Kanker District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, North Bastar Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Mission Director Samagra, Shiksha, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Mission Coordinator Samagra, Shiksha, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 7 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat North Bastar Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 8 - Block Education Officer Block Charama District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.20 10:35:14 +0530 2 9 - Block Coordinator Block Charama District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 10 - Cluster In- Charge (Principal) Cluster Center Tarasgaon Block Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 11 - Dekendra Kumar Singh Posted As Teacher Government Pre Middle School Pipraud, Block Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA For Respondents No.2, 5, 6, 9 & 10 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18.03.2026 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Cluster Coordinator and private Respondent No.11 was posted in his place. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is substantively posted as Head Master, Government Primary School, Bodeli, Block Charama, District North Bastar Kanker. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the District Education Officer, whereby the charge of Cluster Coordinator, which was being held by the petitioner, has been withdrawn and he has been directed to hand over the said charge to respondent No.11. He would next submit that the petitioner was assigned the charge of Cluster Coordinator pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2021, which was duly 3 approved by the Collector. It is contended that the subsequent order withdrawing the said charge has been passed without obtaining the approval of the Collector and, therefore, the same is contrary to the policy guidelines issued by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that respondent No.11 has been directed to take over the charge from the petitioner, though the petitioner was earlier duly assigned the said responsibility after following the prescribed procedure. 3. Learned State counsel, per contra, would submit that the guidelines relied upon by the petitioner relate to newly formed/opened Clusters and prescribe the procedure for selection/appointment of Cluster In-charge or Cluster Coordinator in respect of such newly constituted Clusters. The present case, is not a case of constitution of a new Cluster or appointment of a Cluster Coordinator for a newly constituted Cluster. The Cluster in question is an existing Cluster and the impugned order merely withdraws the charge of Cluster Coordinator from the petitioner and entrusts the same to respondent No.11. It is further submitted that a copy of the order has also been forwarded to the Collector. It is, therefore, contended that there was no requirement of obtaining fresh approval of the Collector before withdrawing the charge from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5, 6, 9 & 10 has adopted the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and submits that no interference is called for with the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material 4 available on record. 6. The undisputed factual position which emerges from the pleadings and submissions is that the petitioner was holding the charge of Cluster Coordinator of an existing Cluster. The petitioner was assigned such charge pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2021. By the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, the said charge has been withdrawn from the petitioner and respondent No.11 has been directed to take over the charge. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that since the original assignment of the charge had been made with the approval of the Collector, the same could not have been withdrawn without obtaining a similar approval. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the policy guidelines referred to in the petition. However, on a careful consideration of the guidelines relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that the same contemplate the procedure relating to newly formed/opened Clusters and the selection/appointment of Cluster In- charge or Cluster Coordinator in such newly constituted Clusters. The present case stands on a different footing. There is no material to demonstrate that, by the impugned order, any new Cluster has been constituted or that the authorities have undertaken the process of constituting a new Cluster so as to attract the aforesaid guidelines. 8. The impugned order, in substance, only withdraws the charge of Cluster Coordinator from the petitioner in respect of an existing Cluster and directs respondent No.11 to take over the said charge. Therefore, the 5 provisions of the guidelines relating to constitution of a new Cluster and the initial selection/appointment of a Cluster Coordinator cannot be mechanically applied to the present administrative decision of withdrawal of the existing charge. 9. The fact that the petitioner was earlier entrusted with the charge pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2021, with the approval of the Collector, does not, in the facts of the present case, lead to the conclusion that a fresh approval of the Collector was mandatorily required for withdrawal of the said charge. The respondents have specifically stated that the impugned order does not create any new Cluster and that the Cluster in question is an existing one. It has also been stated that a copy of the impugned order has been forwarded to the Collector. 10. It is also well settled that holding an additional administrative charge, such as that of Cluster Coordinator, does not by itself confer an indefeasible right upon the incumbent to continue with such charge. In the absence of any statutory or otherwise binding provision shown to have been violated, an administrative decision withdrawing such additional charge would not ordinarily warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to establish that the impugned order has resulted in his transfer from his substantive post or that his substantive service conditions have otherwise been altered. The challenge is essentially to the withdrawal of the additional charge of Cluster Coordinator. The only ground pressed before this Court is that 6 approval of the Collector was required in terms of the guidelines. As noticed hereinabove, the said guidelines relate to newly formed Clusters and do not govern the withdrawal of charge from the incumbent of an existing Cluster. 12. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the policy guidelines relied upon by the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. The impugned order dated 18.03.2026, whereby the charge of Cluster Coordinator has been withdrawn from the petitioner and respondent No.11 has been directed to take over the said charge, does not suffer from any illegality merely on account of absence of a fresh approval of the Collector. No other ground has been established before this Court warranting interference with the impugned order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu