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) 13957

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
DIPTI MANDAVI – Appellant
Versus
SHISHIR KUMAR SHARMA – Respondent
WA No. 201 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghvendra Pradhan
For the Respondents: Pankaj Singh, Praveen Das, Rakesh Kumar Jha

Officers engaged in the revision of electoral rolls are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission under Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and cannot be transferred by the State Government without the Commission's prior approval.

Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Article 324 of the Constitution of India. An employee appointed as an Additional Assistant Electoral Registration Officer for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was transferred by the State Government. The employee challenged the transfer on the grounds that officers engaged in electoral roll revision are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission and cannot be transferred without its prior permission. The court found that the transfer was issued without obtaining the necessary consent from the Election Commission. The primary issue was whether the State Government could transfer an employee engaged in SIR work without the prior consent of the Election Commission of India under the mandate of Section 13CC of the Act of 1950. The court reasoned that Section 13CC explicitly deems such officers to be on deputation to the Election Commission, subject to its control, superintendence, and discipline. Furthermore, under Article 324, the superintendence and control of elections are vested in the Election Commission, and the State Government is constitutionally obliged to comply with its lawful directions. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the transfer order dated 16.12.2025, insofar as it relates to respondent No. 1, is affirmed.

Table of Content
1. background of the transfer dispute and contentions regarding statutory restrictions on transferring electoral officers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. legal status of officers engaged in electoral roll revision as deemed deputees of the election commission under section 13cc. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. constitutional primacy of the election commission's control over electoral work under article 324. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. affirmation of the lower court's decision to set aside the unauthorized transfer. (Para 17 , 18)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

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 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 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

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