1 CGHC010377172026 2026:CGHC:42572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7194 of 2026 Surendra Prasad Dubey Alias Surendra Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad Dubey, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Koylari Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, Distt. Surajpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2. Under Secretary, School Education Department, Mantaralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 3. Collector And District Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha, Distt. Surajpur C.G. 4. District Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Distt. Surajpur C.G. 5. Diwakar Prasad Jaiswal, Head Master, Government Middle School, Masanki, Block Odgi, Distt. Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 08.09.2026 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent No.5, who is presently working as Head Master at Government Middle School, Masanki, Block Odgi, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.10.01 12:20:35 +0530 2 District Surajpur, has been posted on deputation as Block Resource Coordinator, Block Resource Centre, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the order/circular dated 02.04.2009 issued by the State Government (Annexure P-1), the post of Block Resource Coordinator is required to be filled up on deputation from amongst Lecturers or employees/officers holding an equivalent post. It is contended that the post of Lecturer and the post of Head Master, Middle School, do not belong to the same cadre and are not equivalent posts. Therefore, the posting of respondent No.5 as Block Resource Coordinator is stated to be contrary to the aforesaid circular dated 02.04.2009. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the post of Head Master, Middle School and the post of Lecturer belong to the same cadre and that the next promotional post from both the posts is that of Principal. In support of his submission, learned State counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2026'). It is submitted that the posting of respondent No.5 on deputation as Block Resource Coordinator is in conformity with the circular dated 02.04.2009 and, therefore, calls for no interference. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record as well as the Rules, 2026 placed before the Court by learned State counsel. 4. The undisputed position is that respondent No.5 is working as Head 3 Master and has been posted on deputation to the post of Block Resource Coordinator. The circular dated 02.04.2009 provides for filling up the post of Block Resource Coordinator on deputation from amongst Lecturers or employees/officers holding an equivalent post. 5. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the post of Head Master, Middle School, can be treated as an equivalent post to that of Lecturer for the purpose of deputation to the post of Block Resource Coordinator. 6. On perusal of the Rules, 2026, it is apparent that the post of Lecturer and the post of Head Master, Middle School, form part of the same cadre and the promotional post from both the posts is that of Principal. In view of the aforesaid position, the contention of the petitioner that the post of Head Master, Middle School, is neither in the same cadre nor equivalent to the post of Lecturer cannot be accepted. 7. Consequently, the posting of respondent No.5 on deputation as Block Resource Coordinator cannot be said to be in violation of the circular dated 02.04.2009. No illegality or infirmity is found in the order dated 08.09.2026 (Annexure P-4), warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti