Selection guidelines for Cluster Coordinators do not govern withdrawal of an already assigned charge.

The petitioner, a Head Master, held the additional charge of Cluster Coordinator for Cluster Centre Salwahi.

By order dated 20.08.2026, that charge was withdrawn and assigned to respondent No. 8.

The petitioner challenged the order, contending that the guidelines dated 22.01.2021 had not been followed, that Collector approval and an opportunity to be heard were required, and that respondent No. 8 belonged to a different cluster.

The State maintained that the guidelines governed selection, not withdrawal, of an existing charge.

1. Whether the guidelines dated 22.01.2021 governing selection of a Cluster Coordinator also prescribe the procedure for withdrawing an already assigned charge

2. Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner’s charge and its assignment to respondent No. 8 disclosed illegality or arbitrariness warranting judicial interference

The Court considered the guidelines dated 22.01.2021, which prescribe the process for selecting a Cluster Coordinator.

It held that this selection procedure cannot be equated with a procedure for withdrawing a charge already assigned.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found that the petitioner’s principal challenge rested on the alleged failure to follow the 2021 guidelines when his charge was withdrawn.

On examining those guidelines, it concluded that they address selection, not withdrawal of an existing charge.

The petitioner did not otherwise establish specific illegality or arbitrariness in the withdrawal or reassignment decision; the asserted grounds therefore did not justify interference.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.