MUKUNDAN Vs. DISTRICT ELECTORAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the dismissal of O.P. No. 6868/96 in which the appellants figure as petitioners. The appellants are employees of the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology which is functioning under an autonomus body known as Indian Council of Agricultural Research (I.C.A.R.), the status of the same as an other authority under Art.12 of the Constitution of India is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India ( AIR 1984 SC 541 ). The ICAR, though amenable to the writ jurisdiction as an other authority; its employees are not government servants in the strict sense of the term. According to the appellants they do not fall in the category of such staff under the control of the President or the Governors of the States whose services can be requisitioned for election duty under Art.324(6) of the Constitution. In support of their contention they relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Election Commission of India v. State Bank of India ( AIR 1995 SC 1078 ) wherein the apex court held that the services of the Bank employees and employees of the Life Insurance Corporation are not liable to be requisitioned under Art.324(6) of the Constitution since according to the Court they are not such staff as mentioned in the aforesaid article. The Court held as follows:

(2.) Since the petitioners have already rendered duty pursuant to Exts. P1 to P16, the question as to whether their services are liable to be requisitioned in exercise of the powers conferred under Art.324(6) of the Constitution has become academic to be decided as and when their services are really requisitioned on a future occasion, in which event, it will be open for the petitioners to raise all contentions especially the contentions based on Art.324(6) of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. State Bank of India (AIR 1995 SC 1078). The appeal is disposed of as above.