Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Headmaster’s Posting As BRC, Rejects Lecturer’s Challenge Based On Two-Year Transfer Circular

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant could be transferred from the BRC post before completing two years, having regard to the circular dated 5 June 2025.

The court held

The Court held that the Single Judge’s order disclosed no infirmity.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit, leaving undisturbed the order dismissing the appellant’s writ petition.

01Facts

The appellant, a Lecturer in the School Education Department, was posted as Block Resource Coordinator (BRC) at Bhaiyathan with effect from 1 September 2025.

¶ 2–5, 9

By order dated 8 September 2026, respondent No. 5, a Government Middle School Headmaster, was posted as BRC in his place.

¶ 2–5, 9

The appellant challenged that order, contending that he had not completed two years in the post and that a Headmaster could not be posted as BRC.

¶ 2–5, 9

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, and the appellant appealed.

¶ 2–5, 9

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant could be transferred from the BRC post before completing two years, having regard to the circular dated 5 June 2025.

¶ 4, 6, 9–11

ii.Whether respondent No. 5, a Middle School Headmaster, could be posted as BRC when the appellant contended that only a Lecturer was eligible.

¶ 4, 7, 12

03Law Applied

The Court considered the circular dated 5 June 2025, whose opening paragraph excludes its application to teachers engaged in teaching work under the School Education Department.

¶ 6, 9, 11

The Court also observed that its provisions were not mandatory and were to be followed as far as practicable.

¶ 6, 9, 11

It further applied the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026, particularly Schedule IV, Serial No. 7, under which Middle School Headmasters and Lecturers belong to the same cadre and have Principal as their promotional post.

¶ 12

The Court found no legal provision or material prohibiting transfer before completion of two years.

¶ 11

04Reasoning

The appellant belonged to the Lecturer cadre and respondent No. 5, as a Headmaster, also belonged to the School Education Department’s teaching cadre.

¶ 9–12

The circular did not provide the appellant with a mandatory two-year protection: it was not strictly applicable to these employees, was discretionary, and was to be followed only as far as practicable.

¶ 9–12

Nor was any legal prohibition against transfer within two years established.

¶ 9–12

Further, because the Headmaster and Lecturer belonged to the same cadre under the 2026 Rules, the Court rejected the contention that respondent No. 5 could not be posted as BRC.

¶ 9–12