An in-charge principal without substantive feeder-cadre status cannot be assigned Block Education Officer charge.

The appellant, substantively appointed as a Lecturer, was serving as Principal In-Charge of a school when the State entrusted him with the charge of Block Education Officer (BEO), Baloda.

Respondent No. 4, then serving as Assistant Block Education Officer, challenged that decision by writ petition. The Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the order insofar as it gave the appellant BEO charge.

The appellant appealed, contending, among other things, that he was eligible as Principal In-Charge and that Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 did not apply to his school.

Whether a Lecturer serving only as Principal In-Charge, but not holding the substantive post of Principal in the “E” and “T” cadre, could be considered for BEO charge under the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026

Whether the Single Judge erred in setting aside the order assigning BEO charge to the appellant

Whether the appeal should be linked with pending matters challenging the vires of the 2026 Rules

The Court considered Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which generally prohibits deploying teachers for non-educational purposes except for specified duties, and Section 2(n), which defines “school” for purposes of that Act.

It also applied the Schedule to the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026: BEO posts may be filled by promotion or deputation, with 75% filled from Assistant Block Education Officers and 25% from Principals of the “E” and “T” cadre. Eligibility therefore depended on holding the relevant substantive feeder post or cadre post.

The Court did not determine the appellant’s argument concerning the applicability of Section 27.

The appellant’s substantive post was Lecturer; his assignment as Principal was only in-charge, so he did not hold the substantive Principal post in the “E” and “T” cadre specified by the Rules. By contrast, respondent No. 4 held the feeder post of Assistant Block Education Officer and was eligible for consideration.

The Court therefore concluded that the appellant could not be considered for BEO charge on the basis of his in-charge Principal role, and found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order.

The Court declined to link the appeal with pending vires challenges because the appellant had not challenged the validity of the Rules in his own writ petition.

Finding no error in the Single Judge’s decision, it dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit.