Seniority alone creates no enforceable right to the current charge of a higher post.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 17 September 2026 assigning respondent No. 3 the current charge of In-Charge Civil Surgeon-cum-Main Hospital Superintendent at District Hospital, Dhamtari.

The petitioner argued that he was senior and had previously held the charge; he also relied on a General Administration Department circular and disputed the State’s reference to complaints against him.

The respondents contended that respondent No. 3 had been posted at the hospital since 2023 and that entrustment of the charge was an administrative arrangement, not a right arising from seniority.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s delayed joining in 2016 and the material concerning the parties’ cadre and pay-scale progression.

1. Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right, based on seniority, to be entrusted with the current charge of the higher post instead of respondent No. 3

2. Whether the impugned entrustment order violated any statutory rule or binding instruction, or was otherwise arbitrary so as to warrant interference under Article 226

The Court applied the principle that seniority alone does not confer an indefeasible right to hold the current charge of a higher post; such entrustment is an administrative arrangement unless a statutory provision or binding instruction provides otherwise.

The competent authority may consider overall suitability, experience, administrative requirements, and other relevant circumstances, and a reviewing court will not substitute its assessment absent established statutory violation, arbitrariness, or mala fides.

The Court identified no statutory rule or binding instruction requiring the charge to be entrusted to the senior employee.

No specific precedent was cited.

The petitioner’s claim rested principally on asserted seniority and his previous appointment to the charge.

The Court found that these facts did not establish a legal entitlement to the charge, particularly since respondent No. 3 had been posted at the hospital since 2023 and had been assigned other responsibilities there.

The petitioner did not demonstrate that the entrustment breached a statutory rule or binding instruction.

Having regard to the administrative nature of the arrangement and the absence of established illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.