1 CGHC010329332026 2026:CGHC:37787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6308 of 2026 Pradeep Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Shreeniwas Singh Aged About 46 Years Lecturer (Lb)/in-Charge Principal, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Odagi, Block- Odagi District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration, Ministry Of General Administration, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2. Under Secretary School Education Ministry Of Education, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director Public Education Sarguja-Division, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Collector District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5. District Education Officer District- Surajpur (C.G.) 6. Motilal Rajwade Lecturer (Lb), In-Charge Block Education Officer, Odagi Block- Odagi District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sameer Sharma and Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondents/State :Mr. S.S. Badgaiya, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 24.08.2026 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 10:35:00 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Lecturer (LB), seeks quashment of the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.6, who is also a Lecturer (LB) and junior to the petitioner, has been given the charge of Block Education Officer, Block Odgi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as a Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School, Salka, Block Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, and was assigned the administrative and financial charge of Block Education Officer, Odgi, District Surajpur, vide order dated 19.12.2025 issued by respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner took over charge on the same day and duly reported his joining as In-charge Block Education Officer to the concerned authorities. It is submitted that despite the petitioner having been duly assigned the said charge and being senior to respondent No.6, by the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, respondent No.6 has been transferred and posted as In-charge Block Education Officer, Odgi, in place of the petitioner, and the charge has thereafter been handed over to him unilaterally. Learned counsel submits that such action is contrary to the State instructions dated 04.08.2011 and 14.07.2014, which contemplate that a junior employee should not be assigned the current charge of a vacant higher post by superseding a senior. It is, therefore, submitted that 3 the petitioner’s seniority has been bypassed without any justification and the impugned action is liable to be interfered with. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Lecturer and is merely discharging the duties of In-Charge BEO, Odgi which by itself does not confer any right upon him to claim the said post merely on the basis of seniority. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 is duly qualified and was transferred to the post of In-charge BEO vide order dated 10.06.2026. By placing a copy of the communication dated 03.02.2026 of the Collector, Surajpur, learned State counsel submits that on the basis of certain complaints against the petitioner, the Collector has initiated enquiry against the petitioner by constituting a committee. The said communication is taken on record. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. He further submits that similar matter has been decided by this court in the Case of Kishun Lal Matawale Vs. State of C.G. in WPS No. 5810 of 2026 wherein this court has held as under:- 10. It is equally well settled that seniority alone is not sufficient to claim the charge of a higher post. Entrustment of current charge involves consideration of the overall suitability, experience, administrative requirements and other relevant 4 circumstances by the competent authority. Seniority cannot be treated as an automatic substitute for suitability, nor can it be said that a senior employee has an absolute right to supersede every other eligible employee for being entrusted with the current charge of a higher post. In absence of any statutory violation, arbitrariness or mala fide being established, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), passed in respect of respondent No.5, warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4. Learned State counsel further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPS No. 5810 of 2026, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legal or enforceable right to claim the current charge of the post of BEO merely on the basis of her seniority in the cadre. 6. It is noteworthy to mention here that there is no rule or provision brought to the notice of this Court which mandates that a senior employee would, as a matter of right, be entrusted with the current charge of a higher post. Seniority by itself does not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee to hold the charge of a higher post. Mere seniority, in absence of any statutory provision creating such a right, cannot be the sole determining factor for entrustment of current charge. 7. In the present case, the competent authority has entrusted the current charge of BEO, Odgi, which is a stopgap arrangement, to respondent No.6, who is stated to be duly qualified. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the said entrustment has been made in violation of any statutory rule or binding instruction. 8. It is also significant that the communication dated 3.2.2026 of the Collector, Surajpur records serious observations regarding the petitioner's conduct in discharge of duties for which a committee has been constituted to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Though the contemplation of enquiry is not a final finding of misconduct, the same constitutes a relevant 6 circumstance which the competent authority cannot be said to have been precluded from taking into consideration while assessing the suitability of an officer for entrustment of the current charge of a higher post. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPS No. 5810 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.08.2026 passed in WPS No. 5810 of 2026. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti