SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Namrata Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 2487 of 2026 | WPS No. 2708 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Varun Sharma, Abhishek Pandey, Rishabhdev Sahu
For the Respondents: Shailja Shukla

Administrative transfers of officials in violation of mandatory government circulars requiring prior state approval are unsustainable and subject to being quashed by the High Court.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Transfer/Posting - Prior Approval - Mandatory compliance with government circulars - Where a state circular mandates that removing a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a Janpad Panchayat requires prior government approval, a Collector cannot unilaterally pass such an order without obtaining the same.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed that they were holding the charge of Chief Executive Officer in their respective Janpad Panchayats and were reassigned or moved by the Collector via impugned orders dated 11.03.2026. The petitioners challenged these orders on the ground that they violated a State Government circular dated 11.04.2025, which mandated prior approval from the State Government before changing the charge of a CEO.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the circular dated 11.04.2025 explicitly requires that in unavoidable circumstances, if a CEO is to be removed from their charge, the necessity must be justified and prior approval from the State Government is mandatory. Since the Collector passed the impugned orders without such prior approval, the orders were deemed unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the Collector had the authority to reassign the CEOs without obtaining prior approval from the State Government as mandated by the administrative circular dated 11.04.2025.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative authorities must strictly comply with mandatory circulars issued by the State Government, particularly those governing the tenure and transfer of officials, to ensure administrative transparency and prevent arbitrary disruption of duties.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners contest their reassignment orders violating government circular mandates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. failure to obtain prior government approval as mandated by transfer policy renders orders invalid. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court quashes illegal transfer orders and allows writ petitions. (Para 13 , 14)

Order On Board

1. As common ground has been raised in these writ petitions by petitioners, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking following reliefs, which are extracted below from each of the petitions :-

In WPS No. 2487 of 2026

“10.1. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 11/03/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi and direct that the Petitioner may be permitted to continue to work as per her promotion order.

10.2. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

In WPS No.2708 of 2026

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.

10.2. That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by Respondent no. 2, Collector, Gaurela, District- Gaurela Pendra -Marwahi (C.G.) (Annexure-P/2).

10.3. That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 2 Collector, Gaurela and also direct the Respondent no. 3 CEO, Zila Panchayat, Gaurela to post the petitioner in her previous place of posting i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Gaurela, District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.).

10.4. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed to be fit by this Hon'ble Court.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 2487 of 2026 would submit that the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Area Organizer, he was posted as In-charge, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Pendra, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi vide order dated 10.12.2024 and since then, she was discharging her duties with dedication and honesty and vide impugned order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) Collector has ordered the petitioner to be posted in the Office of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi temporarily.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 2708 of 2026 would submit that the petitioner who has been appointed as a Chief Executive Officer and posted in the Office of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi vide order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1). She is now posted in the office of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi temporarily till further orders vide impugned order dated 11.03.2026 by the Collector, Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi.

5. Learned counsel for both the petitioners would submit that the orders passed by the Collector subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions is not sustainable, in view of the circular issued by the State Government on 11.04.2025. By this circular issued state government, directed the authorities not to change the charge of Chief Executive Officer as it is affecting the work and if for any exceptional circumstances shifting of the Chief Executive Officer from one place to another is necessitated, then the prior approval of the State Government to be obtained. While passing the orders by the Collector, no such proceedings have been drawn and therefore, the impugned orders dated 11.03.2026 in both the writ petitions be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would oppose the submissions of learned counsel for the respective petitioners and would submit that there is no di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top