Back
Election Duty Shields Officers: Chhattisgarh HC Blocks Mid-Revision Transfers
In a significant ruling reinforcing the Election Commission's authority, the dismissed a writ appeal on , upholding a single judge's order that quashed a state government's transfer of an officer mid-duty in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , emphasized that such moves violate . The case pitted Dipti Mandavi , Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Berla, against Shishir Kumar Sharma , a Block Development Officer whose transfer was reversed.
From Panchayat Post to Polling Duty: The Timeline of Tensions
Shishir Kumar Sharma, an employee of Chhattisgarh's Panchayat and Rural Development Department, held the post of Block Development Officer at Janpad Panchayat Berla, with additional charge as In-charge Chief Executive Officer. Transferred there in from another panchayat, he was reassigned on , to Zila Panchayat Bemetara as In-charge Assistant Project Officer—simultaneously swapping places with Dipti Mandavi.
But Sharma had a crucial side role: On , the Collector-cum-District Election Officer in Bemetara appointed him Additional Assistant Electoral Registration Officer for SIR work on electoral rolls. This clashed with the transfer, as a prior , directive from Chhattisgarh's Chief Electoral Officer to the Chief Secretary barred such moves without nod. Sharma challenged the transfer in WPS No. 255 of 2026, which the single judge allowed on . Mandavi then filed WA No. 201 of 2026, arguing the swap was fully implemented.
Appellant's Pushback: "It's Done and Dusted"
Mandavi's counsel highlighted full execution: Sharma was relieved, she assumed charge at Berla, digital records updated, and she seamlessly took over SIR duties without disruption. They urged against reversal post-implementation, citing administrative finality, and accused Sharma of delay in filing the writ without justification. Reliance was placed on smooth handover and her successful electoral work.
Opposing counsel for Sharma, the State, and ECI defended the single judge, pointing to statutory bars under Section 13CC, where officers on electoral rolls duty are deemed on ECI deputation, subject to its control. Frequent transfers were flagged as , with the Chief Electoral Officer's post-transfer cancellation request ignored.
Decoding the Law: ECI's Supremacy Over State Transfers
The Bench zeroed in on
Section 13CC
, which deems electoral rolls staff
"on deputation to the Election Commission during the period of such employment and shall be subject to its control, superintendence, and discipline."
The October 2025 advisory explicitly listed roles like Assistant Electoral Registration Officer as non-transferable during SIR without ECI permission—a directive the Chief Secretary endorsed.
Drawing on
Article 324
of the Constitution, granting ECI superintendence over elections—a basic structure element—the court invoked the 's
Kanhaiya Prasad Sinha v. Union of India
(AIR 1990 Pat 189), obligating states to heed ECI directions. Implementation doesn't legitimize jurisdictional voids:
"An order passed in contravention of a statutory mandate cannot be validated merely because it has been acted upon."
Delay pleas were dismissed as technicalities yielding to
.
This aligns with Supreme Court precedents like Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Health Services, Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136, though the Bench prioritized electoral mandates.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Section 13CC of the Act of 1950 provides that any officer or staff employed in connection with the preparation, revision, and correction of 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 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."
"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 ."
"When the impugned action is shown to be without jurisdiction and contrary to a statutory provision, technical objections relating to delay cannot defeat ."
Upholding Electoral Integrity: No Costs, Clear Mandate
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the single judge's quashing of Sharma's
, transfer
"insofar as it relates to respondent No. 1."
No costs ordered. This sets a precedent: States must seek ECI approval for transfers during electoral revisions, safeguarding polls from administrative whims. Future cases may see stricter scrutiny on such overlaps, bolstering India's electoral framework amid rising stakes in voter list accuracy.
