An employee has no enforceable right to continue holding an additional charge.

The petitioner, substantively appointed as Khelkud Shikshak under the 2018 Rules, had been entrusted with additional charge of District Sports and Welfare Inspector in Bhind. By order dated 30 June 2026, the competent authority assigned that charge to respondent No. 7, a Physical Training Instructor (PTI).

The petitioner sought judicial review under Article 226

Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to continue as District Sports and Welfare Inspector merely because he had previously been entrusted with the additional charge

Whether the assignment of that charge to respondent No. 7 was contrary to the applicable rules or departmental instructions, including the transfer policy relied on by the petitioner

An employee entrusted with current-duty or additional charge acquires no substantive or vested right to continue in that arrangement; the competent authority may withdraw or reassign the charge, subject to applicable statutory rules.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma, AIR 1993 SC 2273, which held that a person holding current-duty charge has no right to insist on continuing in it, and Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 733, which distinguishes discharge of higher-post duties from substantive promotion.

The Court also considered the Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Academic Services (Non-Collegiate Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973, as amended, and the departmental circular dated 26 August 2020, under which the relevant charge was to be assigned to an eligible, senior-most PTI of the district.

The petitioner’s substantive post was Khelkud Shikshak under the 2018 Rules, and he did not establish a promotional channel from that post to District Sports and Welfare Inspector or another cadre-based entitlement to the charge.

The Court found that respondent No. 7 belonged to the relevant PTI cadre and that the departmental instructions supported assigning the charge to the senior-most eligible PTI in the district. Because the petitioner’s earlier charge was only an additional arrangement, it created no enforceable right to retain it. The impugned order concerned assignment of charge, not the petitioner’s substantive posting, so the general transfer-policy argument did not establish a ground for interference.

It dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.