The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that members of the teaching cadre cannot be assigned to administrative cadre posts under the state’s educational service rules or federal mandates. Single-judge Justice Bibhu Datta Guru allowed a writ petition, quashing an order issued by the Department of School Education on June 10, 2026, which had assigned the charge of Block Education Officer (BEO) of Balod, District Janjgir-Champa, to a school lecturer instead of a qualified administrative officer.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Gautam, was appointed as an Assistant Block Education Officer on September 26, 2015. Under the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (referred to as “the Rules, 2026”), the post of Assistant Block Education Officer is classified strictly as an administrative post. Due to a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) not being convened, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Assistant Block Education Officer.
On July 16, 2025, the petitioner was appointed as the In-charge Block Education Officer for Balod, District Janjgir-Champa, and had been discharging those duties since that date. However, on June 10, 2026, the Department of School Education issued an order transferring the charge of Block Education Officer, Balod, to respondent No. 4, Shri Anil Kumar Sharma. Respondent No. 4 is substantively appointed as a Lecturer (teaching cadre) and was working as the In-charge Principal of P.M. Shri Swami Atmanand English Medium School, Baloda. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash this order.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Shri Amrito Das, appearing alongside Ms. Shruti Yadav for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner is fully eligible to hold the post of Block Education Officer. They contended that the impugned order of June 10, 2026, violated both the Rules, 2026, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (referred to as “the Act, 2009”). Specifically, they argued that because respondent No. 4 is a member of the teaching cadre, his posting to an administrative cadre post is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. They pointed out that Section 27 of the Act, 2009 explicitly prohibits teachers from being deployed for non-educational administrative roles.
In response, the learned counsel representing respondent No. 4, Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, challenged the maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that the petitioner failed to establish or claim any personal injury or infringement of a legal right, which meant that neither a writ of certiorari nor mandamus could be issued.
The learned State counsel, Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional Advocate General, opposed the petition by asserting that the petitioner’s work performance was not satisfactory. He argued that this unsatisfactory performance justified assigning the charge of Block Education Officer to respondent No. 4, who was working as the In-charge Principal of P.M. Shri Swami Atmanand English Medium School.
The Court’s Analysis
Addressing the state’s contention regarding the petitioner’s performance, Justice Guru observed that the State counsel failed to present any documents or evidence to support this claim, nor could the state show if any notice had been issued to the petitioner regarding his performance.
Regarding the maintainability of the petition, the court rejected the objection raised by respondent No. 4. The court noted that because the impugned order gave the charge of Block Education Officer to respondent No. 4, the petitioner’s posting was directly disturbed. This created a sufficient cause of action for the petitioner, making the writ petition maintainable.
The court then analysed the statutory framework governing the cadres under the Rules, 2026. The court observed:
“According to the Rules, 2026, the post of Assistant Block Education Officer is of administrative cadre, whereas the post of Lecturer is of teaching cadre. Thus, the superior authorities should refrain themselves from posting Government servants of teaching cadre to the post of administrative cadre.”
The court examined the schedule of the Rules, 2026, and noted that the post of Block Education Officer can only be filled either by deputation or by promotion. Specifically, 75 percent of the posts must be filled by promotion of Assistant Block Education Officers, while the remaining 25 percent must be filled by E and T cadre Principals according to their cadre posts. Since respondent No. 4 is substantively a Lecturer and only holds the charge of a Principal, he is neither a substantive Principal nor an Assistant Block Education Officer. Therefore, he cannot legally be given the charge of Block Education Officer.
Expressing clear disapproval of the state’s actions, the court remarked:
“The statutory framework governing appointments and postings in the Education Department clearly maintains a distinction between the teaching cadre and the administrative cadre. Such distinction has been consciously recognized to ensure that administrative posts are to be filled by officers possessing the requisite experience and eligibility within the prescribed cadre. The action of the respondents in entrusting the charge of the post of Block Education Officer to respondent No.4, who admittedly belongs to the teaching cadre, is therefore contrary to the scheme of the Rules and amounts to permitting a person outside the feeder channel and prescribed cadre to occupy an administrative post.”
Furthermore, the court validated the petitioner’s arguments regarding the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Referring to the statutory limitations on deploying teachers, the court observed:
“This Court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that Section 27 of the Act, 2009 mandates that teachers shall not be deployed for non-educational purposes except in the contingencies specifically enumerated therein. The assignment of duties attached to the post of Block Education Officer, which is essentially an administrative post, to a member of the teaching cadre runs contrary to the legislative intent underlying the said provision.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court held that the order dated June 10, 2026, which entrusted respondent No. 4 with the charge of Block Education Officer, was unsustainable and directly violated governing statutory provisions. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
The court concluded with the key statutory principle:
“Teachers shall not be deployed for non-educational purposes except in specific contigencies prescribed under the Scheme of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.”
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Case No.: WPS No. 4582 of 2026
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Date: 23.06.2026
