ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, appearing in person, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned Counsel on behalf of the Election Commission and learned Counsel on behalf of the State.

(2.) The Grievance of the Petitioner is that an Office Order has been passed by Respondent No. 4-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer (panchayat), Garhwa, which was communicated to the Petitioner, as Letter No. 2388 Garhwa dated 9.11.2010, whereby the Petitioner has been appointed as the Patrolling Magistrate and he has been directed to report for election duty on 23.11.2010 at 12 p.m.

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner also joined the training, but his grievance is that his election duty is against the specific Circular/Guidelines issued by the Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi dated 26.12.2008 to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States/U Ts, which is annexed as Annexure-1. The Petitioner has pointed out that he comes within the category of (a) (v); Territorial Staff of Forest Department and they were exempted from election duty. He has also pointed out Annexure-2, which is a letter of the Joint Secretary, Government of India to Chief Secretary of all States/U Ts, in pursuant to the Guidelines/Circular dated 26.12.2008 issued by the Election Commission of India, whereby the Territorial Staff of the Forest Department has been exempted from election duties. The Petitioner admits that the documents on which he has placed reliance are only Guidelines and there are no such Rules completely prohibiting from alloting election duties; he has argued vehemently that he has been discriminated with the Veterinary doctors, as they have not been sent for election duties whereas the Petitioner along with few others have been singled out. Two phases of election are already over and it is only in the third and fourth phase that the Petitioner has been asked to join the duty.