1 / 3 CGHC010256102026 2026:CGHC:30155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5368 of 2026 Neha Verma W/o Bharat Verma Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sukhatal, R/o House No. 30, Ward No. 16, Sukhatal, Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector Kabirdham District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Kabirdham District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Ashok Verma Secretary As Additional Charge Of Secretary Of Gram Panchayat, Sukhatal, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner :Mr. Sudhir Verma , Advocate For Respondents/ State :Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has been assigned the additional charge of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Sukhatal by the impugned order dated 23.09.2024, despite the State Government policy prohibiting posting of a Gram JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 11:29:57 +0530 2 / 3 Panchayat Secretary in his home village to ensure transparency and fairness. He submits that the mother of respondent No.4 had contested the Gram Panchayat election from Sukhatal and was defeated, due to which respondent No.4 is acting with bias and creating obstacles in the functioning of the Gram Panchayat headed by the petitioner, who is the elected Sarpanch. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 has failed to convene mandatory Gram Panchayat meetings and despite several complaints made by the petitioner and other Panchayat members, no action has been taken by the competent authorities. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order assigning additional charge to respondent No.4 be quashed. 2. Learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order whereby additional charge of Secretary has been assigned to respondent No.4, as the order pertains to an administrative arrangement between the employer and its employee. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the elected Sarpanch, has no enforceable legal right to question the posting or assignment of additional charge of a Gram Panchayat Secretary. It is further submitted that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned order and the allegations of bias and mala fides are vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported by any cogent material. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. 3 / 3 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order merely assigns additional charge of Gram Panchayat Secretary to respondent No.4, which is essentially an administrative matter within the domain of the competent authority. The petitioner, being the elected Sarpanch, has no vested or enforceable legal right to challenge the posting or assignment of additional charge of a Government employee. No statutory provision has been shown to have been violated nor has the petitioner established infringement of any legal right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations of bias and mala fides are also unsupported by any cogent material and cannot be made the sole basis for judicial review of an administrative order. 5. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti