1 CGHC010324762026 2026:CGHC:40628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 869 of 2026 Devlal Sonwani S/o Shri Paras Ram Sonwani Aged About 56 Years R/o New Chandaniyapara, Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), Posted As Lecturer (Regular) And Was Working As In-Charge Principle At Govt. Higher Secondary School Balaudi, Block- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - The Block Education Officer Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7 - Ramesh Kumar Lahre Posted as Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary School Balaudi, Block- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 6/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , C.J. 17/09/2026 1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2026, Annexure A/1, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5712 of 2026. The writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the order appointing respondent No. 7, namely, Ramesh Kumar Lahre, as the Principal-in-Charge of Government Higher Secondary School, Balaudi, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, in course of hearing, drew attention of this Court to Annexure P/7, dated 27.12.2016, wherein it is indicated that the senior-most Lecturer of the institution should function as the Principal-in-Charge of the said institution in the absence of a regular Principal. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant remained on leave due to his illness for a considerable period of time. During his absence, respondent No. 7 was directed to function as the Principal-in-Charge of the said institution. However, after his joining and recovering from illness, he was not allowed to function as the Principal-in-Charge of the institution, which was under challenge in the writ petition. It is his submission 3 that the learned Single Judge, without delving into the merits of the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. Though the impugned order was passed on 28.10.2025, the appellant challenged the same in the month of July, 2026. The learned Single Judge construed such delay in filing the writ petition to be inordinate and unexplained. It was also observed that no explanation had been provided by the appellant for such delay in filing the writ petition. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order under Annexure A/1 be set aside and the said WPS be heard afresh on merits. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 vehemently objects to the same and submits that the appellant was in the habit of remaining absent from the institution regularly, even without giving any information. When the impugned order was passed, the appellant was absent from duty. She further submits that no explanation has been given for the delay in filing the writ petition. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order under Annexure A/1. 5. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant was on leave from 19.09.2025 to 24.09.2025 and again from 06.10.2025 to 22.11.2025 on health grounds. Being the Principal-in- Charge of the institution, he remained on leave on account of his ill health. Thus, an arrangement for smooth functioning of the institution was made by allowing respondent No. 7 to function as the Principal-in-Charge of the institution. 4 6. Annexure P/7 (to the writ petition), is advisory in nature and has no binding effect. The extracts of the guidelines in the matter of appointment of Principal-in-Charge has been furnished. Had the complete guidelines be published, this Court would have been in a position to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant. Thus, the appellant cannot claim to be the Principal-in- Charge as a matter of right. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the delay in filing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the writ petition needs no consideration. While affirming the said order, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in arriving at the impugned conclusion, which would warrant interference. 8. In view of the above, the writ appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan