RAM PRAKAT YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioners are members of U. P. Police Force. Election Commission of India, New Delhi on 16-12-2006 addressed letter to the Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Punjab, Chandigarh; Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Uttranchal, Dehradun and Chief Electoral Officers of Punjab, Chandigarh, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Uttranchal, Dehradun and subject matter of aforesaid letter was General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttranchal, and posting of the Officers. In the said letter it was mentioned that General Elections to the Assemblies of the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttranchal, is to be held earlier next year and the Commission in the interest of the free and fair elections, has followed the consistent policy to ensure that officers who are connected with the conduct of elections in the States, do not serve in their home districts or places where they have served for long. Commission on the lines of the instructions issued earlier has decided that no officer connected with elections, directly or indirectly, should be allowed to continue in the present district or posting : (a) if she/he is posted in her/his home district (b) If she/he has completed three years in that district during last four years. Said instructions have been made applicable qua officers appointed for specific election duties like District Election Officers, Returning Officers and Assistant Returning Officer but also other district level officers like Additional District Magistrate, Deputy Collectors, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsildars, Block Development Officers. Qua in the Police Department, instructions have been made applicable to range, IGs, DIGs, SPs, and Sub-Divisional Heads of Police, Inspectors, Sub- Inspectors, Sergeant Majors, or equivalent who are responsible for deployment of force in the district election time. Commission desired that a detailed review may, therefore, be undertaken there ensuing election in all districts or districts where incumbents have completed a tenure of three years out of last four years and while moving officers, who have completed three years in a district out of last four years, care should be taken so that they are not posted to their home district. While calculating the period of three years, promotion to a post within the district is to be counted. While carrying out this review it has been clarified that these instructions do not apply to officers posted at State Headquarters. The State Government accepted this position that Elections are due as such on 26-12-2006 Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh issued requisite directions and thereafter Additional Director General of Police (Establishment) has issued order dated 29-12-2006 directing, that if any officer and employee has completed three years service from 15-12-2002 in any district he may not be kept in said district. Pursuant thereto petitioners have been transferred. At this juncture both the writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Sri Yogesh Agrawal and Sri Satish Chaturvedi contended with vehemence that in the present case Legislative Assembly Election till date has not been notified as such it was not at all in the competence and domain of the Election Commission of India to have issued said directives as such in the present case Election Commission of India has totally transgressed and over stepped its jurisdiction, as such transfer order which have been passed is unsustainable.

(3.) BARE perusal of the aforesaid provision as contained in Part- XV of the Constitution of India, Article 324 of the Constitution of India shows that power of superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice President held under this Constitution has been vested in Election Commission.