DIPTI MANDAVI vs SHISHIR KUMAR SHARMA

1
2026:CGHC:10663-DB


2026:CGHC:10663-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 201 of 2026
Dipti Mandavi D/o Shri Durga Prasad Mandavi Aged About 33 Years At
Present Posted And Working As Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Wrongly Written As
Currently Posted As Assistant Project Officer, Jila Panchayat Bemetara
(C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Shishir Kumar Sharma S/o Late Dr. J.D. Sharma Aged About 60
Years Presently Posted As Block Development Officer, Janpad
Panchayat, Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of
Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Under Secretary Chhattisgarh Department Of Panchayat And
Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar,
Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4. Incharge Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Berla,
District Bemetara (C.G.)

2
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
5. Incharge Assistant Project Officer Jila Panchayat Bemetara,
District Bemetara (C.G.)
6. Election Commission Of India Through Its Chief Electoral Officer,
D.K.S. Bhawan, Old Mantralaya Premises Indrawati Block,
Shashti Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate
General.
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.03.2026 02
1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No. 1, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate
General, appearing for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/respondent No. 5 challenging the order dated 05.02.2026

3
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 255 of 2026 ( Shishir
Kumar Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ
petition filed by respondent No. 1/writ petitioner herein came to be
allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent
No.1/writ petitioner is an employee of the Panchayat and Rural
Development Department, State of Chhattisgarh, substantively holding
the post of Block Development Officer, Janpad Panchayat Berla, District
Bemetara. He was also assigned the additional charge of In-charge
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Berla. By order dated
24.10.2024, he was transferred from Janpad Panchayat Khairagarh,
District Khairagarh–Chhuikhadan–Gandai to Janpad Panchayat Berla,
District Bemetara as In-charge Chief Executive Officer and continued to
discharge his duties there. Subsequently, by order dated 16.12.2025, he
was transferred to Zila Panchayat Bemetara as In-charge Assistant
Project Officer. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 challenged
the aforesaid transfer order on the ground that it was violative of Section
13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act of 1950”). He contended that by order dated
28.11.2025 issued by the Collector-cum-District Election Officer,
Bemetara, he had been appointed as Additional Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer and was engaged in the Special Intensive Revision
(SIR) of electoral rolls. According to him, once deputed for revision of
electoral rolls, the State Government lacked jurisdiction to transfer him
without prior permission of the Election Commission. Reliance was also

4
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
placed upon the communication dated 27.10.2025 issued by the Chief
Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh to the Chief Secretary, advising that
officers engaged in SIR work should not be transferred during the
revision period without prior approval of the Election Commission of
India. Respondent No. 1 further contended that he had been subjected
to frequent transfers and that the impugned transfer order was without
jurisdiction and void ab initio. In support of his submission, reliance was
placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain
Bhagat v. Health Services, Haryana , reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136 .
The writ petition was heard on 05.02.2026, and the learned Single
Judge allowed the petition and set aside the transfer order dated
16.12.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal has been
preferred.
4. It is further submits by the learned counsel for the appellant that
by transfer order dated 16.12.2025, respondent No. 1 was transferred
from Janpad Panchayat Berla, District Bemetara to the office of
Assistant Project Officer, Zila Panchayat Bemetara, and the appellant
was simultaneously transferred from Zila Panchayat Bemetara to
Janpad Panchayat Berla in his place. The order was fully implemented.
Respondent No. 1 was relieved, and the appellant joined at Janpad
Panchayat Berla and assumed charge. Digital signatures in official
records, including status reports and the last pay certificate, were
updated to reflect the change in posting. He further submitted that the
appellant was duly entrusted with the charge of Electoral Registration
Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer by the Election

5
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
Commission and was successfully carrying out the SIR work at the new
place of posting. The responsibility relating to revision of electoral rolls
was effectively handed over to the appellant, and the work of the
Election Commission was being conducted smoothly. The transfer order
had thus been completely acted upon.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that once a transfer
order has been executed and both officers have assumed charge at
their respective new postings, the same ought not to be interfered with,
particularly when administrative arrangements have been finalized
pursuant thereto. It is submitted that this aspect was specifically urged
before the learned Single Judge but was not properly appreciated. He
also submitted that there was delay on the part of respondent No. 1 in
challenging the transfer order. According to the appellant, no cogent or
satisfactory explanation for such delay was furnished in paragraph 7 of
the writ petition, and the explanation offered did not justify the belated
approach to the Court. On the aforesaid grounds, it is contended that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the transfer
order dated 16.12.2025 deserves to be interfered with and the transfer
order ought to be upheld.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, learned State
counsel, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 supported
the impugned order. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, upon
due consideration of the material on record and the statutory provisions
governing the field, rightly allowed the writ petition and that no

6
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
interference is warranted in the intra-Court appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the material available on record.
8. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the
State Government could have issued the impugned transfer order in
respect of an employee engaged in SIR work under the directives of the
Election Commission of India, and whether such transfer could have
been effected in view of the mandate contained in Section 13CC of the
Act of 1950 without obtaining prior consent of the Election Commission.
9. It is not in dispute that the Chief Electoral Officer, Chhattisgarh, by
communication dated 27.10.2025 addressed to the Chief Secretary,
clearly stated that officers and officials engaged in SIR work would
remain under the control, superintendence, and discipline of the
Election Commission in terms of Section 13CC of the Act of 1950. The
said communication specifically requested that officers functioning as
Roll Observer, District Electoral Officer, Deputy District Electoral Officer,
Electoral Registration Officer, Assistant Electoral Registration Officer,
Booth Level Officer Supervisor, and Booth Level Officer should not be
transferred during the SIR period without prior permission of the
Election Commission of India. The Chief Secretary marked the said
communication with an endorsement that suitable instructions be
issued.
10. Section 13CC of the Act of 1950 provides that any officer or staff
employed in connection with the preparation, revision, and correction of

7
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
electoral rolls shall be deemed to be on deputation to the Election
Commission during the period of such employment and shall be subject
to its control, superintendence, and discipline. The provision, being part
of a Central enactment, is binding and must be given full effect.
11. In the present case, by order dated 28.11.2025, respondent No. 1
was appointed as Additional Assistant Electoral Registration Officer and
was engaged in SIR work relating to revision of electoral rolls. From the
date of such engagement, he stood deemed to be on deputation to the
Election Commission by virtue of Section 13CC. Consequently, during
the subsistence of such deputation, he was subject to the control and
superintendence of the Election Commission.
12. The record further reveals that upon learning of the transfer of
officers engaged in SIR work, the Chief Electoral Officer addressed a
communication requesting cancellation of the transfer order dated
16.12.2025. There is nothing on record to indicate that the State
Government raised any objection to the authority of the Chief Electoral
Officer or to the applicability of Section 13CC.
13. The constitutional scheme under Article 324 vests the
superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election
Commission of India. Free and fair elections form part of the basic
structure of the Constitution, and effective control over officers engaged
in electoral work is integral to the discharge of the Commission’s
constitutional mandate. The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in
Kanhaiya Prasad Sinha v. Union of India , reported in AIR 1990 Pat

8
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
189 , has emphasized that the State Government is constitutionally
obliged to respect and comply with the lawful directions issued by the
Election Commission.
14. In view of the statutory mandate under Section 13CC and the
constitutional position under Article 324, the transfer of an officer
engaged in SIR work without obtaining prior approval of the Election
Commission cannot be sustained. The plea that the transfer order had
already been implemented does not cure the inherent lack of
jurisdiction. An order passed in contravention of a statutory mandate
cannot be validated merely because it has been acted upon.
15. As regards the contention of delay, the writ petition was filed
within a reasonable period, and in any event, when the impugned action
is shown to be without jurisdiction and contrary to a statutory provision,
technical objections relating to delay cannot defeat substantive justice.
16. The learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the statutory
provisions, the communications issued by the Chief Electoral Officer,
and the constitutional mandate governing electoral administration,
rightly concluded that the transfer of respondent No. 1 during his
engagement in SIR work was unsustainable in law.
17. We find no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the reasoning or
conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge warranting
interference in this intra-Court appeal.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed . The order passed by the learned Single Judge

9
2026:CGHC:10663-DB
setting aside the transfer order dated 16.12.2025, insofar as it relates to
respondent No. 1, is affirmed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan