Failure to elect a Sarpanch does not create a casual vacancy under Section 38.

The petitioner was the elected Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dongariyakhurd.

The Sarpanch post was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe woman, but no eligible candidate filed a nomination in either the January 2025 general election or the July 2026 by-election, leaving the post unfilled from the outset.

The petitioner accordingly discharged the Sarpanch’s functions under Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules.

On 6 August 2026, the Sub-Divisional Officer invoked Section 38(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and directed a meeting to elect an officiating Sarpanch.

The petitioner challenged that order as an unlawful use of the procedure for a casual vacancy.

1. Whether a Sarpanch post that remained unfilled because no eligible candidate stood for election constitutes a “casual vacancy” under Section 38, permitting an officiating Sarpanch to be elected under Section 38(1)(b).

2. Whether the impugned order could stand when the statutory election procedure under Rule 89 of the 1995 Rules, rather than Section 38, governed the unfilled post.

Section 38(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 treats a vacancy arising from specified events during an office-bearer’s term—such as death, resignation, a no-confidence motion, removal, or election to the legislature—as a casual vacancy; Section 38(1)(b) provides for election of a temporary Sarpanch when such a casual vacancy occurs.

Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules provides that, in the absence of a Sarpanch, the Up-Sarpanch exercises and performs the Sarpanch’s powers and functions.

Rule 89 of the 1995 Rules requires vacancy information to be reported to the District Election Officer and provides for the State Election Commission to take steps to fill vacant seats.

Relying on Sarswati Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.A. No. 621/2015, decided 11 July 2016, the Court held that a post never filled through election is not a casual vacancy under Section 38.

No person had been elected Sarpanch, so the post had not become vacant during an elected office-bearer’s tenure and none of the contingencies in Section 38(1)(a) had occurred.

The authority therefore lacked a basis to invoke Section 38(1)(b) and convene a meeting to elect an officiating Sarpanch.

The Court held that the vacancy instead had to be addressed through the election machinery under Rule 89, while the Up-Sarpanch’s existing authority to discharge the Sarpanch’s functions was supported by Rule 3(2).

The authorities were directed to report the vacancy and proceed under Rule 89, with the State Election Commission to initiate the appropriate election process for a Sarpanch belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category.

Pending that election, any person elected or appointed in the 17 August 2026 proceedings would continue to officiate; if no person was selected, the petitioner would continue discharging the Sarpanch’s functions.