[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Chipanpalli vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:9927-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.02.27
10:13:05
+0530
WA No. 188 of 2026
Santosh Chipanpalli Son Of Late Shri Madaniya Aged About 47 Years
Working As Lecturer (LB), And Posted At Government High School
Gadapal, Block And District - Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Education
Mantralaya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Joint Director Public Instruction Bastar Division Jagdalpur, District -
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
3 - District Education Officer Dantewada District South Bastar
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Ashwani Kumar Kanwar Working As Lecturer (LB) And Incharge Of
Principal At Government High School Gadapal, Block And Disrtict -
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr.Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate
No.1 to 3/State General
For Respondent : Mr.Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
No.4
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
26.02.2026
1. Heard Mr.Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State and Mr.Vinod Kumar
Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated
21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9537
of 2023 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the appellant
is working as a Lecturer (L.B.) and is posted at Government High
School, Gadapal, Block and District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh,
where he has been discharging his duties sincerely and regularly.
Thereafter, vide order dated 30.09.2022, the appellant was
transferred from Government High School, Gadapal, Block and
District Dantewada, to Government Higher Secondary School,
Gadiras, Block Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh, which
transfer order was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ
Petition (S) No. 7005/2022, wherein this Court, vide order dated
04.11.2022, granted a status quo order in favour of the appellant,
pursuant to which the appellant continues to perform his duties
efficiently at Government High School, Gadapal, Block and District
Dantewada. The appellant, while working as Lecturer (L.B.), had
earlier also been entrusted with the charge of Principal and worked
as In-charge Principal at Government High School, Gadapal, and
there was no complaint whatsoever regarding the discharge of his
duties as In-charge Principal, as evident from letter dated
08.04.2015 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Dantewada, under the office of the Collector, District
South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. Despite the subsisting
status quo order dated 04.11.2022, respondent No. 3, vide
impugned letter dated 14.11.2022, failed to comply with the said
order and illegally assigned the charge of Principal to private
respondent No. 4, who is junior to the appellant, inasmuch as the
appellant is placed at Serial No. 4612 whereas private respondent
No. 4 is placed at Serial No. 9200 in the seniority list dated
02.06.2023, the said action being based on the erroneous transfer
order dated 30.09.2022. Thereafter, the appellant submitted
representations to the concerned respondent authorities seeking
restoration of the charge of Principal in his favour in place of his
junior, private respondent No. 4, but no action has been taken till
date, and therefore the appellant has been constrained to
approach this Court with a prayer to cancel the charge of Principal
granted to private respondent No. 4 and to direct consideration
and decision of the petitioner's pending representations in
accordance with law and seniority, at the earliest. By the impugned
order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by
the appellant herein. Hence, this writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and
material available on record and suffers from serious legal
infirmities. The learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate
the pleadings and documents placed before the Court and has
dismissed the writ petition without due consideration of the
relevant aspects of the matter. He further submits that complaints
were made by the Sarpanch and the local M.L.A. to the competent
authorities against Private Respondent No. 4 alleging that he was
not properly discharging his duties, that he failed to take proper
care of the students, that the academic performance and 10th
class results were unsatisfactory, and that he had committed
irregularities in the discharge of his official duties. Copies of the
complaint dated 15.10.2025 and related representations have
been filed collectively as Annexure A-2. These material
documents have not been adequately considered while upholding
the impugned order. He also submits that the appellant was initially
appointed as Lecturer vide order dated 30.04.2005, whereas
Private Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lecturer much later,
vide order dated 15.02.2013. The appellant is admittedly senior to
Private Respondent No. 4. In the seniority list, the appellant's
name appears at Serial No. 4612, whereas the name of Private
Respondent No. 4 appears at Serial No. 9200. Despite such clear
seniority, the junior officer has been favoured in an arbitrary
manner. It is contended that the appellant was appointed as In-
charge Principal by letter dated 08.04.2015 and had been
continuously discharging his duties on the said post for more than
seven years with satisfactory performance. However, by the
impugned order dated 14.11.2022, Private Respondent No. 4 has
been wrongly appointed as In-charge Principal in place of the
appellant, without assigning any justifiable reason and in complete
disregard of seniority and established service norms. He
contended that the action of the authorities in appointing a junior
officer as In-charge Principal, superseding the senior appellant, is
arbitrary, illegal, and violative of settled principles governing
service jurisprudence. The impugned action is not only contrary to
law but also smacks of favoritism and non-application of mind. It is
further submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition without properly appreciating the material on record and
without adequately addressing the specific grounds raised by the
appellant. The impugned judgment, therefore, warrants
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In
view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this Court may
be pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as the order dated 14.11.2022 appointing
Private Respondent No. 4 as In-charge Principal, and grant
appropriate relief in favour of the appellant.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and
submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the
aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by
the appellant herein, in which no interference is called for.
6. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned
Single Judge has observed that the petitioner, who is substantively
holding the post of Lecturer (L.B.), does not possess any legal,
statutory, or vested right to claim or insist upon being entrusted
with the charge of the post of Principal merely on the basis of
seniority or past officiation. It is well settled that assignment of
charge to a higher post is a matter of administrative exigency and
discretion of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. The transfer of the petitioner vide order dated 30.09.2022
was effected on administrative grounds, and pursuant thereto, the
competent authority, in exercise of its lawful discretion, assigned
the charge of Principal to respondent No. 4 vide order dated
14.11.2022. The interim status quo order dated 04.11.2022, as
specifically pleaded by the State, was not within the knowledge of
the authorities at the time of issuance of the impugned letter, and
in any event, such interim protection does not confer upon the
petitioner an enforceable right to hold additional charge. The
petitioner's reliance on seniority and previous discharge of duties
as In-charge Principal does not create any indefeasible
entitlement, particularly when the assignment of charge is
temporary in nature and subject to administrative assessment.
Moreover, the allegations raised against respondent No. 4 are
unsupported by cogent material and appear to stem from personal
grievance rather than any demonstrable illegality.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as
also with writ appeal and also considering the findings recorded by
the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any
illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
