Sashi Prabha Tomar And Others ... vs Election Commission Of India ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 229 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 248 of 2022


Sashi Prabha Tomar and others                      ...Petitioners

                               Versus

Election Commission of India through
Chief Electoral Officer Uttarakhand and
Another                               ...Respondents


Present:-
             Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
             Munish Bhardwar, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondent.

                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks

the following reliefs:-

"(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter dt. 21.01.2022 passed by respondent no.2.

(ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to pressurize them to join election duty/training.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Facts are in a very short compass. The

petitioners are working in a different capacity in Mahila

Vidhaylaya Degree College and SMJN Degree College which

are grant in aid colleges affiliated with the University. It is

the case that the colleges where the petitioners are working

are privately managed Institute. They are not Government

Servant. They are working in the high positions in the

Educational Administration, but they have been deputed in

the General Election duty and given the work virtually of

Grade-IV and Grade V i.e. Electoral Personnel at booth level.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties through

video conferencing and perused the record.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners restricts his argument that the petitioners

should be given election duties keeping in view their pay

scale, their ranks and status in the individual institution.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

would submit that in view of Section 159 Sub Section (2) (iv)

of the Representations People Act, 1951 (for short, "the

Act"), the petitioners can be deputed in the General

Election. Learned counsel would submit that while deputing

the petitioners, in view of Chapter-3 Clause 3.2.1 of the

Handbook of Returning Officer issued by the Election

Commission, the scale, post, rank etc. of the petitioners

have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that the

order deputing the petitioner on election duty (Annexure

No.1 to the petition) reveals that the petitioners have been

deputed as Presiding Officer of a Polling Station.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would

submit that if it is the statement on behalf of the

respondents that the petitioners have been given the work

of a Presiding Officer of a particular Polling Station, the

petitioners' grievance stands addressed and nothing

survives in this petition.

7. In view of Section 159 (2) (iv) of the Act the

petitioners can be deputed in the General Election duty, it is

not disputed.

8. A statement has been given on behalf of the

respondents that in view of the direction and condition,

particularly, Clause 3.2.1 as referred to hereinabove, the

scale, post, rank etc. of the petitioners have been taken into

consideration and they have been appointed Presiding

Officer of the Polling Station.

9. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that

nothing survive in this petition and the writ petition stands

disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 08.02.2022 Sanjay/Neha