Deependra Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 6863 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deependra Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26309




                                                              1                               WP-20583-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                                    ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 20583 of 2025
                                             DEEPENDRA PRASAD PANDEY
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Amit Kumar Chaturvedi - counsel for the petitioner.

                                   Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for State

                                                                  ORDER

The petitioner who is working as Lecturer in School Education Department has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Sarojani Naidu Girls, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal to Government Higher Secondary School, Bharkachha Kalan, Raisen vide Annexure P-1 dated 07/06/2025.

Counsel for the petitioner raises a sole ground of violation of Section 13-CC of Representation of People Act, 1950 by referring to order

Annexure-P-5 issued by Electoral Registering Officer Legislative Assembly area no.151 Narela, Bhopal whereby the petitioner has been deputed as a Booth Level Officer for the work of revision of electoral roll. It has been further contended that he had been relieved thereafter to work as Booth Level Officer under control and supervision of the Electoral Registering Officer who is an authority under Election Commission, therefore, as per

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26309

2 WP-20583-2025 Section 13-CC of the Act he became under the control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission. Further reliance is placed on judgment of co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.6271/2017 (Krishna Kant Pathak Vs. State of M.P& others) passed in identical situation by Gwalior Bench of this Court.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is not effectively and actually involved in the election process and he has not been taken on deputation by the Election Commission and therefore benefit of Section 13-CC of the Act can not be given.

In W.P.No.6271/2017 (Krishna Kant Pathak Vs. State of M.P& others) co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-

From perusal of certificate Annexure P/2, it is clear that petitioner is involved in work of election process and therefore, as per circular of M.P. Election Commission, he services cannot be transferred. Therefore, petitioner is directed to prefer a detailed representation, taking all the grounds as available to him, within ten days, before respondent No.2 along with certified copy of the order passed today. In turn, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case of petitioner in accordance with provisions of Section 13(CC) of the Act and status of petitioner as BLO, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. It is made clear that interim protection,if any, given to the petitioner is only on the condition of verification about the status of the petitioner and if the petitioner is actually working as Booth Level officer and is involved in election process,otherwise,he would be treated as regular teacher, and respondents would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26309

3 WP-20583-2025 In view of aforesaid the petitioner is directed to submit a comprehensive representation before the respondent no.2 within a period of 5 days from today failing which interim protection will not be available to the petitioner.

In the event if such representation is preferred within 5 days from today the petitioner would be allowed to continue at present place of posting and the operation and effect of impugned order shall remain stayed till the representation is decided. The representation shall be decided in terms of direction issued in W.P.No.6271/2017 as quoted above.

Petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

S /-