Competent authorities must decide pending service representations by a reasoned, speaking order under applicable rules.

The petitioners were serving as Head Masters in Government Middle Schools in District Gariyaband. They had initially been appointed as Teachers (L.B.) and were promoted to the post of Head Master by promotion orders dated 11.11.2025.

Respondent No. 5, also a Teacher (L.B.), was appointed as In-charge Assistant Block Education Officer (ABEO), Block Chhura, District Gariyaband, by order dated 10.06.2026.

The petitioners submitted representations dated 14.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 challenging the arrangement and sought their consideration by the competent authorities.

The State submitted that, if the representations remained pending, they would be considered and decided in accordance with law within 25 days.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ pending representations challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as In-charge ABEO?

Whether the Court should adjudicate the petitioners’ challenge to the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 on merits at the writ-petition stage?

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 and the applicable Government instructions governing postings, promotions, and administrative arrangements in the School Education Department.

It further applied the procedural principle that a competent administrative authority must consider a pending representation independently, in accordance with the governing law and rules, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court did not rely upon or cite any judicial precedent and expressly refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the dispute.

The petitioners raised a prima facie administrative grievance based on their asserted seniority, their promotion as Head Masters, and the alleged availability of senior and eligible officers for the post of In-charge ABEO.

However, rather than determining the correctness of the provisional gradation list, the legality of respondent No. 5’s posting, or the applicability of the 2026 Rules, the Court accepted the State’s submission that the pending representations could first be examined by the competent authority.

Accordingly, the Court confined its intervention to ensuring consideration of the representations in accordance with law and directed that the decision must be reasoned and speaking.

It specifically preserved the merits of the dispute for determination by the competent authority.

It directed the competent respondent authority, if the representations dated 14.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 were still pending, to consider and decide them independently, in accordance with law, the applicable Rules, and Government instructions, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 25 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claim.