UMAKANT RAMKRUSHNA MAHURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) It is the contention of Shri Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for the applicants, that the applicants, who are Teachers, were called upon to perform election related duty, which was of updating electoral rolls of State Legislative Assembly elections during working days and teaching hours, which is not permissible in law as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. St. Marys School and others (2008) 2 SCC 390, which has been followed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions starting with Writ Petition No.6718/2019, decided on 18/2/2020. He also submits that though in the said decision, this Court had directed that if any first information report is lodged against Teachers for refusal to perform the election duty during School hours, the same shall not be prosecuted and even then the present first information report bearing No.31/2020 has been registered at Police Station, Hingna. He also seeks support from the communication issued by the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and Union Territories on 28/1/2008 wherein the Election Commission has directed that if Teachers are required to be put on duties for election related work, it must be confined to holidays, non-teaching days and non-teaching hours.

(3.) Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicants, seeks time to obtain instructions in the matter, but when it is pointed out by us that fate of this application is entirely governed by the law laid down by the Apex Court, he submits that an appropriate order in the light of law governing the field may be passed by this Court. There is thus no need to await instructions from the respondent Authorities.