Assignment of Reader duties in Tahsil offices must be given to Class-III employees, not Class-IV staff.

The Petitioner, a Data Entry Operator (Class-III employee), was posted at the Tahsil Office, Sheorinarayan. He previously performed the duties of an Assistant Reader to the Tahsildar.

Upon the transfer of the then Tahsildar (Respondent No. 5) on 25.02.2026, a new work distribution order was issued wherein the work of "Reader" was assigned to Respondent No. 6, who is a Process Server (Class-IV employee).

The Petitioner challenged this order, contending that a Reader’s position involves communicating directions to Class-III staff, creating a procedural anomaly where Class-III employees would have to comply with the directions of a Class-IV employee.

The Petitioner filed a representation before the Collector (Respondent No. 2) on 13.04.2026, which remained pending.

1. Whether the assignment of the duties of a "Reader" to a Class-IV employee, in the presence of available Class-III employees, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the Court should direct the Respondent authorities to decide on the Petitioner's pending representation regarding the work allotment.

The court emphasized the administrative principle that certain sensitive hierarchical positions, such as a "Reader" to a Tahsildar, require a minimum clerical or technical grade. Specifically, the court noted that for such "important work," an employee should hold at least a minimum Class-III post.

The court also applied the principle of administrative fairness, requiring authorities to consider the availability of higher-graded staff (such as Assistant Grade-III or Data Entry Operators) before assigning duties to lower-graded (Class-IV) staff.

The Court observed that it was undisputed that Respondent No. 6 is a Class-IV employee.

It highlighted that the role of a Reader to a Tahsildar is of significant importance and necessitates the appointment of an official holding a Class-III post at minimum.

Upon perusal of the work distribution memo, the Court found that there were at least two Assistant Grade-III employees and the Petitioner (Data Entry Operator) available in the office.

The Court reasoned that if the Petitioner could not be assigned the role due to other duties, the authorities should have directed one of the other AG-III employees to perform the task rather than delegating it to a Class-IV Process Server.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 (Collector, Janjgir Champa) to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 13.04.2026 in accordance with the law.

The Court ordered that a decision be passed expeditiously, preferably within ten days from the date of receipt of the order.