1 CGHC010237872026 2026:CGHC:41058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4788 of 2026 Vedanand Arya S/o Sobha Ram Arya Aged About 47 Years R/o Presently Woring On The Post Of Incharge Block Education Officer Pathalgaon Block Pathalgaon District Jashpur C.G. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Scholl Education Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Jashpur District Jashpur C.G. 3 - District Education Officer Jashpur District Jashpur C.G. 4 - Kamlesh Kumar Working On The Post Of Lacturer (Lb) Posted At Govt Giris Higher Secondary School Bagicha District Jashpur C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Resp/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kahsyap, Dy. GA For Resp No. 4 : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21.09.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent No.4 has been posted/entrusted with the charge of In-charge Block Education Officer, RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.22 18:06:07 +0530 2 Pathalgaon, in place of the petitioner. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is junior to him and, therefore, the entrustment of the said charge to respondent No.4 is contrary to the Government instructions/transfer policy governing such arrangements. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Block Education Officer and has the requisite experience and seniority in the cadre. It is contended that respondent No.4, being junior to the petitioner, could not have been entrusted with the current charge by displacing the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is contrary to the applicable Government policy and has been passed without assigning any cogent administrative reason for overlooking the petitioner's seniority. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 10.06.2026 be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the petition and submits that the impugned order is an administrative arrangement made by the competent authority in the interest of proper functioning of the department. Learned State counsel further submits that a departmental enquiry has already been initiated against the petitioner under sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is further submitted that the District Departmental Inquiry Officer, Office of the Collector, District Jashpur, has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer, while the District Education Officer, District Jashpur, has been appointed as the Presenting Officer, and a charge-sheet has already been issued to the petitioner on 10.07.2026 and the Departmental Inquiry is pending consideration. Learned State counsel submits that the aforesaid circumstance was also relevant for the 3 competent authority while making the administrative arrangement in question and, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 supports the submissions made by learned State counsel and submits that respondent No.4 has been entrusted with the charge by the competent authority and that no enforceable right of the petitioner has been infringed. He would also submit that the respondent No.4 has already taken the charge at the new place of posting. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the same set of charges, vide report dated 23.07.2026, the District Education Officer has already exonerated the petitioner observing that no charge has been proved against the petitioner. He would submit that after giving the charge of the present place of posting to respondent No.4, no posting place has been given in respect of the petitioner. 6. At this juncture, by referring the document Annexure-R-4/3 filed by the respondent No.4, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner’s original posting is lecturer at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gharjiyabathan and the petitioner is still withdrawing the salary from the setup of the said school in the capacity of Lecturer. He would also submit that where the petitioner is withdrawing the salary, the post of Lecturer is still lying vacant and hence, the petitioner cannot say that there is no place of posting in his respect. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the charge in question is a current/in-charge arrangement and not a substantive appointment or promotion to the post. Such 4 entrustment is essentially a stop-gap administrative arrangement made to ensure continuity in the functioning of the office. The mere fact that an employee has earlier been entrusted with such charge does not, by itself, create a vested right to continue therein indefinitely. 9. It is noteworthy that no statutory provision or binding instruction has been brought to the notice of this Court which mandates that a senior employee must, as a matter of right, be entrusted with or continued in the current charge of a particular post. Seniority by itself does not confer an indefeasible right upon an employee to hold or continue to hold a current charge. In the absence of any statutory provision or binding Government instruction creating such a right, mere seniority cannot, by itself, be treated as the sole determining factor for entrustment of current charge. 10. In the present case, the competent authority has entrusted the current charge of Block Education Officer, Pathalgaon, to respondent No.4 as an administrative arrangement. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that such entrustment has been made in violation of any statutory rule or binding Government instruction. The mere fact that respondent No.4 is junior to the petitioner, therefore, would not, by itself, render the impugned order illegal. 11. From the material available on record, it is quite vivid the present Writ petition is only to question the charge given to respondent No.4 who is stated to be junior to the petitioner. Thus, at this stage, there is no need to consider the submission of the petitioner that for the same setup of charges, the DEO has already exonerated him holding that no charge is found against the petitioner. 5 In respect of the said grievance, the petitioner may agitate the same in other proceeding, if so advised. 12. 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 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. 13. In the present case, the competent authority has made an administrative arrangement by entrusting the current charge to respondent No.4. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any statutory provision which confers upon him an absolute right to continue in such charge or any binding Government instruction which has been violated by the impugned order. The material on record also does not establish arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The principle that seniority cannot be treated as an automatic substitute for suitability assumes particular significance in the matter of a temporary entrustment of current charge. The competent authority is entitled to consider the overall administrative requirements, experience, suitability and other relevant circumstances while making such an arrangement. 6 15. This Court, therefore, finds no legal infirmity in the order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 16. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Rahul