SURENDRA PRASAD DUBEY @ SURENDRA KUMAR DUBEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010405562026 2026:CGHC:46423-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 1063 of 2026
Surendra Prasad Dubey @ Surendra Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Bhagwan
Prasad Dubey, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village- Koylari, P.S. - Bhaiyathan,
Tahsil – Bhaiyathan, Distt- Surajpur, C.G.
… Appellant
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education
Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur- C.G.
2. Under Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, 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, Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Masanki,
Block-Odagi, Distt- Surajpur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
03.11.2026
1. Heard Mr. A. N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for appellant as well
as Ms. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State
and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2
2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated
30.09.2026 passed by learned Singh Judge in WP(S) No. 7194/2026
(Annexure A/1). In the writ petition, the appellant herein being the petitioner
challenged the order dated 08.09.2026, whereby the respondent No.5 who was
working as Headmaster at Government Middle School, Masanki, Block Odgi,
District- Surajpur was posted on deputation as Block Resource Coordinator,
Block Resource Centre, Bhaiyathan, District – Surajpur where the appellant was
continuing.
3. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the rival contentions
of the parties, the circular dated 02.04.2009, and the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre)
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules,
2026’), dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the order of the learned Single
Judge (Annexure A/1), submits that respondent No. 4 was continuing as
Headmaster in a Government Middle School. Thus, he could not have been
posted as Block Resource Coordinator (BRC), as only a Lecturer can be posted
to that post. The appellant was holding the post of Lecturer and was rightly
posted as BRC. The appellant was transferred and posted as BRC vide order
dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure A/2), and he has not completed two years of
service in the said post. Thus, he could not have been disturbed as a
consequence of the transfer of respondent No. 5 to the post where he is
presently posted. Learned counsel for the appellant verily relies upon the circular
dated 05.06.2025 and submits that normally, a Lecturer should not be disturbed
from a place where he has not completed two years of service. Since the
appellant has not completed two years of service, he could not have been
transferred vice respondent No. 5.

3
5. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge did not take into
consideration these material aspects and passed the impugned order. Hence,
the impugned order (Annexure A/1) is not sustainable and is liable to be set
aside.
6. Ms. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate opened her
arguments by drawing our attention to the opening paragraph of circular dated
05.06.2025 (Annexure A/7) which reads as under:-
“ jkT; 'kklu ,rn~}kjk iwoZ esa tkjh LFkkukarj.k uhfr dks
vf/kdzfer djrs gq, fuEukuqlkj LFkkukarj.k uhfr@izfdz;k
fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA ;g LFkkukarj.k uhfr x`g iqfyl½ foHkkx]
(
vkcdkjh foHkkx] [kfut lk/ku foHkkx] ifjogu foHkkx]
okf.kT;dj foHkkx] iath;u foHkkx] Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ds varxZr
f'k{kkdh; dk;Z esa inLFk f'k{kdx.kkas rFkk jkT; ds
[email protected]@vk;ksxksa ,oa Lok;Rr laLFkkvksa ij ykxw ugha
gksaxsA ””
”
7. She, therefore, submits that this circular is not applicable to the employees
of the School Education Department of Chhattisgarh. She further submits that
the posts of Headmaster of Middle School and Lecturer belong to the same
cadre and that their promotional post is Principal in terms of the provisions of the
Rules, 2026. Thus, there was no difficulty in posting respondent No. 5, who was
the Headmaster of a Middle School, to the post of BRC. She further submits that
the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the rival contentions of the
parties and discussed the same in detail before arriving at the impugned
conclusion. The circular (Annexure A/7) is not mandatory and is being followed
as far as practicable. There is no provision under law prohibiting the transfer of a
Teacher/Lecturer within two years of joining a post. Thus, there is no illegality in
the impugned order (Annexure A/1). She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the
writ appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 supports the contentions

4
raised by Ms. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate.
9. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record, more particularly, the writ petition, the impugned
order, as well as the documents placed before us, we find that the appellant was
posted as BRC at Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, with effect from 01.09.2025. He
had not completed two years in the said post by the time the impugned order
dated 08.09.2026 was passed, whereby respondent No. 5 was posted in his
place as BRC. The opening paragraph of Annexure A/7, as quoted above,
suggests that the circular is not applicable to the Teachers/Lecturers of the
School Education Department.
Of course, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
10.
was not continuing in a teaching post, as he was posted as BRC by virtue of the
order under Annexure A/2.
11. On consideration of the materials and records, we find that the appellant
was posted as BRC. However, he belongs to the cadre of Lecturer under the
School Education Department. Respondent No. 5 was also continuing as a
Headmaster and belongs to the School Education Department. Both of them
belong to the teaching cadre of the School Education Department. Thus, the
provisions of the circular under Annexure A/7 are not strictly applicable to them.
On perusal of Annexure A/7, it is manifest that the provisions therein are not
mandatory in nature but discretionary. The provisions of such circular are to be
made applicable as far as practicable. Further, no material is placed before us
prohibiting the transfer of the appellant within two years from the date of his
joining as BRC.
12. It further appears that the Headmaster and Lecturer of a Middle School
belong to the same cadre and that their promotional post is Principal, as per

5
Serial No. 7 of Schedule IV of the Rules, 2026. In that view of the matter, both of
them belong to the same cadre. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for
the appellant that respondent No. 5 could not have been posted as BRC is not
acceptable.
Taking into consideration the discussions made above and the facts and
13.
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge has discussed the matter in detail before arriving at the conclusion.
We find no infirmity in the impugned order (Annexure A/1). Accordingly, the writ
appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Preeti