Allowed¶29

Ujal Singh Choudhary v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2026WPS/6952/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Attachment of services of government servant; circular dated 4.6.2001 prohibits attachment of services; Head Master Govt. Middle School Sarkanda attached to Govt. Middle School Chimarkela; order dated 22.11.2021 by District Education Officer Mahasamund (respondent No.3) quashed; State's claim of temporary administrative adjustment rejected; Chhattisgarh school education department; WPS No. 6952 of 2021; NAFR; judge Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3 (District Education Officer); respondents left at liberty to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. ¶29

Ujal Singh Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010343702021

2026:CGHC:28515

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 6952 of 2021

¶8

1 - Ujal Singh Choudhary S/o Late Shri Sundar Singh Choudhary Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master, Govt. Middle School Sarkanda, Block Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Joint Director Public Instruction Department, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Office Building, Pension Bada Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

3 - The District Education Officer Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

4 - The Block Education Officer Basana, Block Basana, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner/s	: Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State	: Shri Anil S. Pandey, G.A.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

09.07.2026

¶19

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

¶21

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no. 3, being illegal arbitrary and without any authority of respondent no. 3, in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents.

¶23

10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

¶24

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the services of the petitioner were attached to Government Middle School Chimarkela, Block Basna, District Mahasamund vide order dated 22.11.2021. He would submit that the attachment of services is not permissible according to circular dated 4.6.2001 and therefore, petitioner has not been relieved from the present place of posting. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶25

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that for better administration of work, the services of the petitioner were adjusted at another school and the impugned order is not an order of attachment but a temporary administrative adjustment. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

¶28

5) A perusal of Annexure-P/1 dated 22.11.2021 would show that the services of the petitioner were attached from the Government Middle School Sarkanda, Block Basna to the Government Middle School Chimarkela, Block Basna. A bare reading of the circular dated 4.6.2001 would make it clear that the attachment of services of a government servant is not permissible.

¶29

6) Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Education Officer/ respondent No.3 dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶32

Nimmi

Ujal Singh Choudhary v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujal Singh Choudhary v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jyoti Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chaitram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimlesh Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pashupati Nath Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Prasad Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh