Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed seeking a declaration that Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Act 12 of 1998) is ultra vires the Constitution of India, and a direction upon the respondents not to requisition the services of the employees of nationalized banks, rural banks and Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for deployment in connection with the ensuing Assembly Elections which were to be held in 1998. The elections in question were held on time but as the issue raised by the petitioner survives, we heard Counsel for the parties on merit of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that Clause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution of India enjoins the President and the Governor of a State, as the case may be, to make available to the Election Commission or to a Regional Commissioner such staff as may be necessary for discharging the functions conferred on the Election Commission by Clause (1). Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 also provides for deployment of staff of local authorities. The expression such staff in Article 324 (6) of the Constitution and Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, AIR 1995 SC 1078 = 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 13 and it was held that the employees working under the President or Governor alone can be requisitioned. The decision was rendered in the context of the officers and employees of the State Bank of India (SBI) and Insurance Companies, and in the circumstances the services of the officers/employees of the SBI or Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) cannot be requisitioned for election work. 3. It is relevant to mention here that Section 159 of the Act was amended twice - in 1997 and again in 1998. In terms of the provision as it now stands, after the 1998 amendment, the staff of any institution, concern or undertaking established by a Central, Provincial or State Act have been brought under the purview of the local authority within the meaning of Section 159 (1) of the Act. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the vires of the said amendment. 4. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the vires of the said amendment. 4. Article 324 of the Constitution of India vests in the Election Commission the power of superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of , all elections of Parliament and to the Legislature of every State. Article 327 enables the Parliament to make provisions with respect to all metters relating to, or in connection with, elections to either House of the Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses. In exercise of the said power the Parliament enacted the Representation of People Act, 1950 and the Representation of People Act 1951. Whereas the 1950 Act provides for allocation of seats, delimitation of constituencies, the qualification of voters, preparation of electoral rolls etc., the 1951 Act provides for conduct of elections to the Parliament and State Legislature, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Houses, corrupt practices in connection with the elections and so on. 5. Apart from Clause (6) of Article 324, Section 159 of the 1951 Act also provides for deployment of staff of local authorities in connection with the election duties. Section 159, as it originally stood, was under:- “159. Staff of every local authority to be made available for election work.-Every local authority in a State shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under Clause (4) of Article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election.” 6. In 1997 amendment was made in Section 159 adding Sub-section (2) delineating the meaning of local authority in Sub-section (1). In 1997 amendment was made in Section 159 adding Sub-section (2) delineating the meaning of local authority in Sub-section (1). The section so amended read as under:-“(2) The following shall be authorities for the purposes of Sub-section (1), namely:- .(i) every local authority; .(ii) every university established by a Central, Provincial or State Act; (iii) any other institution, concern or undertaking (not being an institution, a concern or an undertaking established under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956) controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government. 7. In 1998 Section 159 was again amended by Act 12 of 1998. The section now reads as under:-“159. Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election work.-(1) The authorities specified in Sub-section (2) shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under Clause (4) of Article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election. .(2) The following shall be the authorities for the purposes of Sub-section (1) namely;- .(i) every local authority; .(ii) every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act; (iii) a Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government.” 8. A conjoint reading of Section 159 as it originally stood, as it stood after the 1997 amendment and as it now stands after the 1998 amendment, makes it clear that the staff of any institution, concern or undertaking established by a Central, Provincial or State Act among other entities earlier stood out of the ambit of the section and therefore, their staff could not be requisitioned for election work. By virtue of 1998 amendment, however they have now been brought under its fold. 9. The reason is not far to seek. By virtue of 1998 amendment, however they have now been brought under its fold. 9. The reason is not far to seek. The Election Commission has to hold elections at intervals and it is not possible to maintain huge staff on regular basis for conducting the elections. It is for this reason that Clause (6) of Article 324 confers power on the Election Commission to requisition the services of the staff working under the President of India or Governor of the State, as the case may be. Section 159 of the Act confers similar power with respect to the staff of the local authorities. When the Constitution came into force in 1950, besides those working under the Central or State Governments, the employees of local authorities were also available and that is how under Section 159, power of Election Commission was extended to requisitioning their services too. Apparently, with increase in volume of work with the passage of time, a bigger workforce was needed. 10. Having made these introductory remarks, it is to be considered whether the staff of the SBI or the LIC can be requisitioned for election duties in the light of the provisions of Section 159 as it now stands after the 1998 amendment. 11. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioner is Clause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution and the decision in Election Commission of India vs. SBI Staff Association (Supra). Indeed, Clause (6) of Article 324 is sought to be employed to challenge the vires of the amended provision. We shall advert to the question of vires a little later in this Judgment . So far as the decision in Election Commission of India vs. SBI Staff Association (Supra) is concerned, from a bare glance it would be manifest that the decision was rendered on consideration of Section 159 as it stood prior to amendment in 1997 or 1998. On examination of the provisions of Section 159 as it then stood alongwith those of Article 324 (6) of the Constitution the Supreme Court, held that the words such staff in Clause (6) of Article 324 can only mean that staff which is under the control of the President or the Governor concerned and not any staff over which they do not exercise control. In the absence of any expanded definition of local authority, as it is now to be found in Section 159, the Election Commission obviously had no power to requisition the services of the staff of bank etc. for election duties. The position as it now obtains is totally different. Though the 1997 amendment no doubt excluded the staff of any institution concern or undertaking established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act from the definition of local authority they are now expressly included within the ambit of local authority by virtue of the 1998 amendment. The said amendment, if we may say so, takes the wind out of sail of the petitioners case. 12. Indeed, we have grave doubts about locus standi of the petitioner. At the relevant time when he filed the writ petition, he was a law student. It is said that he has since enrolled himself as an Advocate and, is now practising law, but this in our opinion does not make any difference. The petitioner has not been able to show as to why the impugned direction of the election authorities affects or tends of affect his rights. It is pertinent to mention here that no grievance of the kind has been made by and on behalf of officers/employees of the SBI or the LIC. We do not think the petitioner can maintain such a grievance. 13. The above observation of ours in fact answers the challenge to vires too. It is well settled that vires of a provision can be challenged only on the ground of legislative incompetence or violation of fundamental rights. No case of legislative incompetence has been made out and in the absence of breach of any right, muchless fundamental right, of the petitioner, we do not think, the challenge to vires can be entertained at all. The entire case of the petitioner is founded on Article 324 (6) of the Constitution and decision in Election Commission vs. SBI Staff Association (Supra) which we have dealt with earlier. We do not find any conflict between Article 324 (6) and Section 159 of the Act. In our opinion, the petition is totally misconceived. 14. In the result, finding no merit, we dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.