Seniority Alone Creates No Enforceable Right to Current Charge of a Higher Post.

The petitioner challenged the District Education Officer’s order dated 30 May 2026 assigning respondent No. 4, a junior Lecturer (LB), the current charge of Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Kunra.

The petitioner, a Lecturer, stated that he had previously held that charge and had been restored to it after an earlier order replacing him was quashed by the High Court on 17 March 2025 in WPS No. 6325 of 2024.

The State submitted that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner concerning alleged misappropriation of government funds and that the competent authority had assigned the charge to respondent No. 4 as an administrative arrangement.

The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order.

1. Whether the petitioner’s seniority gave him a legal or enforceable right to claim the current charge of Principal over respondent No. 4.

2. Whether the assignment of current charge to respondent No. 4 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Seniority alone does not create an indefeasible right to hold the current charge of a higher post where no statutory provision confers such a right.

Entrustment of current charge is an administrative arrangement for the competent authority, which may consider suitability, experience, administrative requirements and other relevant circumstances.

In the absence of a statutory violation, arbitrariness or mala fides, the Court will not substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court found no rule or provision requiring that a senior employee be given current charge as a matter of right.

The petitioner had not shown that the assignment to respondent No. 4 violated a statutory rule or binding instruction.

The State’s return also disclosed departmental proceedings concerning alleged misappropriation, which the Court considered in assessing the circumstances surrounding the decision.

Because the petitioner established neither an enforceable right based on seniority nor arbitrariness or another ground for judicial intervention, the Court declined to interfere with the competent authority’s administrative decision.

The writ petition was dismissed.