Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1068 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-12-09

POONAM SRIVASTAV

body2010
Order Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, appearing in person, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel on behalf of the Election Commission and learned counsel on behalf of the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that an Office Order has been passed by Respondent No. 4- Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Garhwa, which was communicated to the petitioner, as Letter No. 2388 Garhwa dated 9.11.2010, whereby the petitioner has been appointed as the Patrolling Magistrate and he has been directed to report for election duty on 23.11.2010 at 12 p.m. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner also joined the training, but his grievance is that his election duty is against the specific Circular/Guidelines issued by the Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi dated 26.12.2008 to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States/UTs, which is annexed as Annexure-1. The petitioner has pointed out that he comes within the category of (a)(v); territorial staff of Forest Department and they were exempted from election duty. He has also pointed out Annexure-2, which is a letter of the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India to Chief Secretary of all States/UTs, in pursuant to the guidelines/circular dated 26.12.2008 issued by the Election Commission of India, whereby the territorial staff of the Forest Department has been exempted from election duties. The petitioner admits that the documents on which he has placed reliance are only guidelines and there are no such Rules completely prohibiting from allotting election duties; he has argued vehemently that he has been discriminated with the Veterinary doctors, as they have not been sent for election duties whereas the petitioner alongwith few others have been singled out. Two phases of election are already over and it is only in the third and fourth phase that the petitioner has been asked to join the duty. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the State Election Commission submits that before the amendment was brought in Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only the employees of the State Government or the Public Company or the State Aided Organization used to be assigned with the election duty in the Panchayat Election, but subsequent to amendment in Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act and also in the Representation of the People Act, the services of local authorities can be requisitioned and it cannot be questioned. 5. 5. Under amended provision of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the services of the employees of the Local Authorities, Universities incorporated by or under the Central Provincial or State Act, the Government Company as defined in Section 17 of the Company Act, 1956 and any other institution concerned or undertakings which is established by or under a Central, Provincial, State Act or its control or finance wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the State Government can be requisitioned. Thus, the said provision does take territorial staff of the Forest Department within its fold. Further, by virtue of incorporation of a new Section 68A in the Principal Act through an amendment the services of the employees of the concerned mentioned above can be requisitioned for conducting Panchayat Election. The said Section 68A reads as follows:- "68A. In case any doubt arises or inadequacy is felt in giving effect to any provision of this Act in respect of preparation of electoral rolls or conduct of elections, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules made there under, as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis apply." 6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, I do not find any illegality or infringement of right of the petitioner which calls for an interference by this Court. I do not find any substance in the submission made by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate that there is a right which is violated, least of all his constitutional or fundamental rights are being infringed by sending him to join the election duty. It is true that certain guidelines have been issued, but it cannot be said to be mandatory. It does not even have any persuasive value. It is only to avoid certain class of employees who are required in other offices. The employees mentioned in the guidelines are only as a last option. The Panchayat Raj Election is only for a short period and no right accrues to the petitioner for issuance of a writ in his favour against the respondents. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety on the part of the respondents requisitioning him for his services in the Panchayat Election. The Panchayat Raj Election is only for a short period and no right accrues to the petitioner for issuance of a writ in his favour against the respondents. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety on the part of the respondents requisitioning him for his services in the Panchayat Election. Keeping in view the relevant provisions of law in the Panchayat Raj Act as well as Representation of the People Act, there is no merit in the case and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the I.A. No. 4228 of 2010 also stands disposed of.