DR. ANURADHA DIWAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010404452026 2026:CGHC:44612
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7575 of 2026
1 - Dr. Anuradha Diwan W/o Shri Madan Gopal Aged About 43 Years
Presently Working As Assistant Professor (Commerce), Navin
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Government College, Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Digitally signed by
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Date: 2026.10.16
10:55:19 +0530
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education
Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner Higher Education Department Iindrawati Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Dr. Mangal Nirala Assistant Professor, Government Pataleshwar
College, Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner :Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate
For Respondents/State :Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
15.10.2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-

2
“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set-aside the order dated 22.09.2026 (Annexure P/1)
whereby the respondent no.3 has been entrusted with the
charge of Principal and Drawing, Disbursing and Financial
powers of Navin Government College, Pachpedi, District
Bilaspur.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
respondents to allow the petitioner as In Charge Principal
and Drawing, Disbursing and Financial powers of Navin
Government College, Pachpedi, District Bilaspur.
10.3 To award the cost and expenses of this petition.
10.4 To issue any other writ or directions or orders in favor
of the Petitioner and against the respondents upon these
facts and in the circumstances of the case in the interest
of justice.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Professor
(Commerce) at Navin Government College, Pachpedi, Bilaspur.
He further submits that, by the impugned order, respondent No. 3,
who is junior to the petitioner and was appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor vide order dated 22/02/2022, has been
entrusted with the current charge of the post of Principal, Navin
Government College. Learned counsel contends that the
impugned order has been passed without assigning any reasons
for superseding the senior-most officer, i.e., the petitioner, and
preferring a junior officer for entrustment of the current charge of
the said post. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned

3
action is contrary to the Government instructions issued from time
to time governing entrustment of current charge of higher posts
and has been passed without any justification for overlooking the
petitioner’s seniority and eligibility. The petitioner has already
submitted a representation vide annexure P-6, but no appropriate
decision has been taken. It is, therefore, prayed that the
impugned order may be quashed and appropriate relief be
granted to the petitioner.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that certain
complaints have been made against the petitioner, which are
being examined by a Committee constituted by the department.
Learned State counsel further submits that seniority is not the sole
criterion for entrusting the current charge of the post of Principal.
It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order does not suffer
from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this
Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
5. 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

4
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.
6. 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.
7. In the present case, the State has submitted that certain
complaints have been made against the petitioner and that a
Committee has been constituted by the department to examine
the same. In such circumstances, the decision of the competent
authority to entrust the current charge of the post of Principal to
respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal merely
because the petitioner is senior to the said respondent.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on

5
record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to
establish any legal or enforceable right to claim the current charge
of the post of Principal merely on the basis of her seniority in the
cadre. Further, in view of the complaints made against the
petitioner and the inquiry initiated by the department to examine
the same, the decision to withdraw the current charge of the post
of Principal from the petitioner and assign the same to the private
respondent cannot be faulted.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality,
arbitrariness or perversity in the order dated 22.09.2026
(Annexure P/1), passed in respect of respondent No.3, warranting
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Resultantly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed . However, if any complaint has been
made against the petitioner or any Committee has been
constituted to inquire into such complaints, a copy of the
complaint(s) and the order constituting the Committee shall be
furnished to the petitioner within a period of five days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Amardeep