SOMJIT RAY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the matters are Professors/teachers in various Government colleges/universities. The present challenge has been preferred against the deployment of the petitioners as Presiding Officers in the ongoing Panchayat Elections, to be deputed at the polling stations. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that as per the Notification dated February 16, 2010 issued by the Elections Commission of India (ECI), Group-"A" or equivalent senior officers, including teaching staff of universities, colleges, etc., should not be drafted for polling duties in polling station premises without specific reasons to be recorded in writing by the District Election Officer, where such appointments become unavoidable. It is further submitted that even the West Bengal State Election Commission (SEC), in its notification dated May 10, 2018, clarified that seniority of officials should properly be taken care of while giving election related duty and it should be ensured that a senior official is not put on duty under an official who is quite junior to him/her.

(2.) The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, places reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported at 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 754 [All Bengal State Government College Teachers' Association and another Vs. Election Commission of India and others]. The learned Single Judge held in connection with an election proceeding, that the Polling Officers report to the Presiding Officers who, in turn, report to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State. Therefore, in such hierarchy of things, a Presiding Officer, at which the members of the first petitioner therein are likely to be appointed in the election process, will not be placed below any person lower in rank. A submission was recorded that the Court need not pass orders on surmise, apprehension and conjectures which, according to the learned advocate appearing for the ECI, at that stage of the writ petition.

(3.) Thus, it is argued that the engagement as Presiding Officer in a polling station of the petitioners was not derogatory to their seniority in any manner, since the Presiding Officer was the senior-most officer functioning in the booth.