PRAMATHA RANJAN MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, has challenged the order dated 6th July, 2013 issued by the Panchayat Returning Officer and the Block Development Officer, Bagnan II Development Block, Uluberia, Howrah, the respondent No. 5 directing him to act as Presiding Officer in the ensuing panchayat election and the memo dated 9th July, 2013 directing him to attend the third training for polling officers on the ground that the initial notification dated 18th May, 2013 for holding poll was given a go by, as evident from the subsequent amended notification, on 19th June, 2013, and he had been appointed as polling agent by a candidate subsequently. It is submitted by Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the petitioner that though election was notified on 18th May, 2013, however, as dates were subsequently changed and fresh dates of polling were announced as evident from the fresh notification dated 6th July, 2013, which is identical to the earlier notification dated 11th June, 2013, and as the earlier training stood cancelled and as the Panchayat Returning Officer on 19th June, 2013 approved the appointment of the petitioner as a polling agent, the stand of the Election Commission is illegal. Moreover, as the candidate by letter served on the Returning Officer on 11th July, 2013 had requested the Commission to release the petitioner and to allow him to perform duties as polling agent, if the orders under challenge are uphold, the entire election process may be vitiated.

(2.) Mr. L.C. Bihani, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the West Bengal State Election Commission and Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, learned advocate for the State submit that as the initial notification dated 18th May, 2013, though amended, still stands and on the basis of such notification training programmes had commenced on 17th June, 2013 and had continued till 24th June, 2013 and as the petitioner was intimated by an order dated 11th June, 2013 that he had already been selected as a Presiding Officer and accordingly training was imparted on 17th June, 2013, that is, before his appointment as a polling agent, the orders under challenge are just and proper. With regard to the approval of the petitioner as being appointed as a polling agent of a candidate submission is it was a routine matter and has nothing to do with his initial appointment as Presiding Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner is trying to avoid election duties.

(3.) Heard learned advocates for the parties. In order to appreciate the issue, it is necessary to refer to section 6(5) of the West Bengal State Election Commission Act, 1994 which is set out hereunder:-