1 CGHC010313272026 2026:CGHC:37957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6270 of 2026 Mohan Lal Pradhan S/o Shri Laha Ram Pradhan Aged About 56 Years Working As In- Charge Block Education Officer, Malkharouda, R/o P. O. Dhurkot, Tehsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa 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 - Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Shri Budheshwar Prasad Sharma Lecture, Government Higher Secondary School Deogaon Block Malkharoda, District Sakti C. G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA For Respondent No.3 : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. The petitioner by way of the present petition has called in question the order dated 10.06.2026, whereby respondent No.3 has been transferred/posted in place of the petitioner and has been entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer, Malkharoda, District Sakti. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.25 18:38:25 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.3 and submits that he had earlier been entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer, Malkharoda. He would next submit that in the Gradation List of Lecturers as on 01.04.2026, the petitioner is placed at Serial No.1787 with seniority from the year 2015, whereas respondent No.3 is placed at Serial No.11057 with seniority from 01.07.2018. According to the petitioner, despite there being no adverse circumstance against him, the charge has been entrusted to a person much junior to him, in disregard of the Government instructions governing entrustment of current charge of higher posts. It is further submitted that the action is contrary to the Government instructions contained in the Standing Order dated 04.08.2011 and the subsequent circulars reiterating its compliance. 3. Learned State counsel, while placing on record the circulars annexed with the petition, submits that the General Administration Department had issued the Standing Order dated 04.08.2011 regarding entrustment of current charge of higher posts. The subsequent circulars dated 16.05.2012, 07.02.2013 and 14.07.2014 reiterate compliance with the said Standing Order and require the departments to follow the prescribed guidelines without deviation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that, having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time, the charge of Block Education Officer has been entrusted to respondent No.3 and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. It may be noticed that this Court, while considering the matter on 20.08.2026, had directed learned State counsel to seek instructions as to whether any complaint or departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner on account of which the charge of Block Education Officer, Malkharoda had not been assigned to him despite a much junior person having been entrusted with the said charge. The matter was thereafter directed to be listed on 24.08.2026. On the matter being taken up, learned State counsel, on instructions, fairly submits that no complaint or departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. 7. The Standing Order dated 04.08.2011, placed on record as Annexure P/7, provides that while entrusting current charge of higher posts, the principle of seniority-cum-merit is to be followed and, ordinarily, the senior-most eligible officer is to be preferred. The subsequent circulars reinforce the said requirement. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.3. The Gradation List placed on record demonstrates that the petitioner is at Serial No.1787 with seniority from 2015, whereas respondent No.3 is at Serial No.11057 with seniority from 01.07.2018. More importantly, pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2026, learned State counsel has obtained instructions and has categorically stated that no complaint or departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any administrative exigency, adverse circumstance or other justifiable 4 reason, consistent with the aforesaid Government instructions, for overlooking the seniority of the petitioner and entrusting the current charge of Block Education Officer to respondent No.3. When the Government itself has prescribed the manner in which the current charge of a higher post is to be entrusted, namely, by following the principle of seniority-cum-merit and ordinarily preferring the senior-most eligible officer, such guidelines are required to be adhered to. In the absence of any circumstance justifying departure from the same, the action of overlooking the petitioner and entrusting the charge to respondent No.3, who is admittedly junior to him, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, insofar as it transfers/posts respondent No.3 in place of the petitioner and entrusts him with the charge of Block Education Officer, Malkharoda, District Sakti, is hereby quashed. However, the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order for entrustment of the current charge of Block Education Officer, Malkharoda, after considering the seniority- cum-merit, eligibility, suitability and capability of the concerned Lecturers, strictly in accordance with the Standing Order dated 04.08.2011 and the subsequent circulars/instructions reiterating compliance thereof, including the circulars placed on record as Annexure P/8. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu