CGHC010277052026 2026:CGHC:35874-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 717 of 2026 Smt. Sarita Toppo W/o Anil Kumar Toppo Aged About 46 Years Posted As Superintendent At Kasturba Gandhi Aavasiy Vidyalay Gourela, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director Samagra Shiksha State Office Pension Bada Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Cum District Mission Director Samagra Shiksha Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Mission Co- Ordinator Samagra Shiksha District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Mamta Dwivedi Posted At Superintendent At 100 Seater Girls Hostel Gaurela, Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy GA For Private Respondent-6 : Ms Akanksha Jain, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Wa 717 of 2026 2 Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.08.2026 Heard Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA for the State, and Ms Akanksha Jain, learned counsel for the Private respondent-6. 1. Present Writ Appeal is filed with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and set-aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2026 passed by Hon’ble single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition(S) No.5207/2026 and further may be pleased to grant relief sought by the appellant in the Writ Petition(S) No.5207/2026, in the interest of justice.” 2. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant calling in question the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.5207/2026, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the District Education Officer, Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi, has been dismissed. By the aforesaid order dated 18.06.2026, the appellant was relieved from the post of In-charge Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiya Vidyalaya, Gaurella, and was directed to report back to her parent institution, namely, Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar, Block Gaurella. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition. It is Wa 717 of 2026 3 submitted that the appellant was initially appointed as Lecturer and was thereafter, assigned the duties of In-charge Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiya Vidyalaya, Gaurella. An earlier order relating to cancellation of her posting/assignment had been challenged by her in WPS No.1405/2023. It is further submitted that during pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant was transferred under the rationalization policy from Government Higher Secondary School, Lalpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar, where she joined on 09.06.2025. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, by a fresh order dated 17.07.2025, the District Education Officer again directed the appellant to discharge the duties of In-charge Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiya Vidyalaya, Gaurella. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant joined and continued to discharge the duties. It is contended that WPS No.1405/2023 was subsequently disposed of as having become infructuous on 16.09.2025. According to learned counsel, the respondents have wrongly interpreted the said order and have issued the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 relieving the appellant from the post of In-charge Superintendent. It is argued that the order dated 17.07.2025 was an independent administrative order and was passed after the appellant had already joined at Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar. Therefore, the said order could not have been treated as having automatically ceased to operate merely because the earlier writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have not disclosed any concrete reason or material Wa 717 of 2026 4 constituting the alleged "administrative exigency". The impugned order, according to the appellant, is therefore arbitrary, suffers from non- application of mind and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5207/2026 be set aside and the reliefs claimed in the writ petition be granted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents jointly would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the appellant has no vested or indefeasible right to continue as In-charge Superintendent of Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiya Vidyalaya. The assignment of additional/in-charge duties is essentially an administrative arrangement and can be withdrawn by the competent authority in the interest of administration. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the appellant continues to hold her substantive post and has merely been relieved from the additional charge of In-charge Superintendent with a direction to report at her parent institution, i.e. Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 has been passed on account of administrative exigency and there is no allegation, much less any material, demonstrating mala fides, violation of any statutory provision or incompetence on the part of the authority which issued the order. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Wa 717 of 2026 5 Judge has rightly held that transfer, posting and withdrawal of an additional/in-charge assignment are matters falling within the domain of the administrative authorities and ordinarily do not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is accordingly prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and also learned counsel for the private respondent and carefully perused the material available on record, including the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The undisputed factual position is that the appellant is substantively appointed as a Lecturer and that she was subsequently assigned the duties of In-charge Superintendent, Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiya Vidyalaya, Gaurella. It is also not in dispute that during pendency of WPS No.1405/2023, the appellant was transferred under the rationalization policy from Government Higher Secondary School, Lalpur to Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar and joined at the latter institution on 09.06.2025. Thereafter, by order dated 17.07.2025, the competent authority directed the appellant to discharge duties as In- charge Superintendent at Kasturba Gandhi Aawasiya Vidyalaya, Gaurella. The appellant accordingly discharged the said duties. 8. The principal contention of the appellant is that, since the order dated 17.07.2025 was a fresh order, the same could not have been Wa 717 of 2026 6 treated as having lost its efficacy merely because WPS No.1405/2023 was subsequently disposed of as infructuous on 16.09.2025. 9. We find substance in the submission that the order dated 17.07.2025 was a subsequent administrative order. However, the mere fact that the said order was a fresh order does not confer upon the appellant any indefeasible right to continue indefinitely against the additional/in-charge assignment. It is well settled that an employee ordinarily has no vested right to remain at a particular place or to continue against an administrative posting or assignment indefinitely. An order relating to posting, transfer or entrustment/withdrawal of additional charge is primarily within the administrative domain of the competent authority. 10. In the present case, the appellant has not been reverted from her substantive post of Lecturer, nor has she been deprived of her service. She has merely been relieved from the additional charge of In-charge Superintendent and directed to report to her parent institution, Government Higher Secondary School, Jogisar. 11. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the respondents have specifically stated that the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 was issued on account of administrative exigency. The appellant has not been able to establish that the authority which passed the impugned order lacked jurisdiction or competence to withdraw the additional charge. Wa 717 of 2026 7 12. The plea of the appellant that the impugned order is arbitrary merely because detailed reasons have not been recorded therein also cannot, in the facts of the present case, be accepted. The order does not involve termination of service, reduction in rank or any punitive consequence. The appellant has only been directed to report to her parent institution. 13. So far as the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in WPS No.1405/2023 is concerned, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of the fact that the said writ petition had become infructuous on account of the subsequent transfer of the appellant under the rationalization policy. 14. Even assuming that the order dated 17.07.2025 constituted a fresh administrative arrangement, the same cannot be construed as creating a permanent right in favour of the appellant to continue as In-charge Superintendent. Such an arrangement remains subject to the administrative requirements of the department and can be altered or withdrawn by the competent authority. 15. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in matters concerning transfer, posting or administrative assignment, is limited. Unless the order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, passed by an incompetent authority, contrary to a statutory provision, or demonstrably arbitrary, the Court would not ordinarily substitute its own view for that of the administrative authority. Wa 717 of 2026 8 16. In the present case, despite repeated opportunity, the appellant has not placed any material before us demonstrating that the order dated 18.06.2026 was passed on account of mala fides or for any extraneous consideration. No statutory provision has also been brought to our notice which confers upon the appellant a right to continue as In-charge Superintendent for a fixed tenure or prohibits the competent authority from withdrawing such additional charge. 17. The contention that the respondents have misconstrued the order dated 16.09.2025 may have some factual basis to the extent that the order dated 17.07.2025 was subsequent thereto. However, such contention, by itself, does not render the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 illegal. The respondents were otherwise competent to take an independent administrative decision regarding continuation of the appellant against the additional charge. Thus, even if the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge regarding the efficacy of the earlier arrangement is read somewhat differently, the ultimate conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish a ground warranting interference with the order dated 18.06.2026 does not call for interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 18. We are also conscious of the fact that the appellant has not been transferred to an adverse or punitive posting. She has merely been directed to return to her parent institution where she holds her substantive post. Wa 717 of 2026 9 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no perversity, jurisdictional error or error of law in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the prayer of the appellant to set aside the order dated 10.07.2026 passed in WPS No.5207/2026 and to grant the reliefs sought in the writ petition cannot be accepted. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.19 17:56:20 +0530