Unchallenged administrative orders for appointment must be implemented, rendering subsequent contrary appointments invalid.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to allow her to join as a Guest Teacher-I (Economics) at Government High Secondary School (GHSS) Dhamokhar

Historically, the petitioner’s previous writ petition (WP No. 29003 of 2023) was dismissed, but upon a review petition (RP No. 29 of 2024), the High Court modified the order on February 28, 2025, clarifying that previous negative observations regarding her performance (less than 30% result) would not bar her future re-engagement

Consequently, the District Education Officer (DEO), Umaria, issued an order dated November 26, 2025, accepting the petitioner’s representation for appointment

However, instead of issuing the offer letter to the petitioner, the respondents appointed Respondent No. 8 to the post

Respondent No. 8 failed to appear before the court despite being served notice

1. Whether the respondents are legally bound to implement the District Education Officer’s order dated November 26, 2025, regarding the petitioner’s appointment

2. Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 8 is valid when a prior, unchallenged administrative order directed the appointment of the petitioner

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce administrative accountability

the principle that a final, unchallenged administrative order passed by a competent authority (the District Education Officer) creates a binding obligation on the department to grant the benefits accruing from said order

the doctrine of finality, noting that once a departmental decision is reached following judicial directions in a review petition, it cannot be bypassed by appointing a third party

The Court observed that the DEO's order dated November 26, 2025, was issued specifically to comply with the High Court’s observations in RP No. 29 of 2024, which cleared the petitioner for re-engagement

The DEO’s order explicitly accepted the petitioner's claim for the Guest Teacher position

The Court reasoned that since this order was never challenged in any court of law, it attained finality

Consequently, the department's action of appointing Respondent No. 8 was arbitrary and "contrary to the order dated 26/11/2025"

Because the respondents admitted the existence of the favorable DEO order in their own return, they were estopped from denying the petitioner the consequential benefits

The Court held that Respondent No. 8 cannot be granted an appointment that contradicts the DEO’s final order

The petition was disposed of with a mandate for the petitioner's re-engagement as Guest Faculty