Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Deen Dayal vs State Election Commission ... on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
21ST SEPTEMBER, 2022
Special Appeal No.322 of 2022
Dr. Deen Dayal ......Appellant
Vs.
State Election Commission Uttarakhand and Others
......Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.1 & 2.
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
Issue notices.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents are
present and accept notices.
3. The present special appeal is directed against
the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPMS No.2224 of 2022. By the
impugned order the learned Single Judge while issuing
rule nisi in the matter and directing its listing on
01.12.2022 while granting time to the respondents to
file their counter affidavit, has refused to grant the
interim relief sought by the respondent no.4 / writ-
petitioners on the ground that the election is scheduled
to be held on 26.09.2022 and any interim order passed
by the learned Single Judge would disrupt the smooth
conduct of the election.
4. The appellant before us is an employee of
respondent no.4, who has been detailed for the election
duty by the order of the District Magistrate/ District
Electoral Officer (Panchayat) at Roshnabad, Haridwar,
District Haridwar.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the impugned order detailing the
employees of respondent no.4 deemed to be University
is in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in WPMS
No.10 of 2016, Registrar Gurukul Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya & another Vs. District Election
Officer/District Magistrate, Haridwar & another passed
in the case of the respondent no.4 deemed to be
University itself. The learned Single Judge allowed the
said writ-petition challenging similar orders passed by
the District Magistrate detailing the employees of
respondent no.4 for election duty, on the ground, that
the respondent no.4 deemed to be University is not
receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government.
6. The learned Single Judge relied on Section
12BC of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 which, in sub-
section (2), provided that every local authority and the
management "of every educational institution receiving
grant-in-aid from the State Government in the district"
shall, when so required by the District Magistrate make
available to him or any other officer appointed by the
District Magistrate as Nirvachan Adhikari such staff as
may be necessary for the performance of any duties in
connection with such election.
7. Since, the respondent no.4 deemed to be
University is not in receipt of any grant-in-aid from the
State Government, the learned Single Judge held in
2
paragraph no.9 as follows:-
"The employees of Gurukul Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya, a deemed to be University, are not
employees of an educational institution receiving grant-in-
aid from the State Government and therefore, cannot be
compelled/asked to perform election duties."
8. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that when the District Magistrate initially
sent a communication on 12.07.2022 requiring
submission of list of the employees serving in the
respondent no.4 - University for deputing them for
election duty, the respondent no.4 immediately
responded on 19.07.2022 bringing to his notice the
aforesaid judgment and stating that the employees of
the respondent no.4-University cannot be detailed for
election duty. The respondent no.3, however, ignored
the said communication and in the last minute, when
the elections are due to be held on 26.09.2022, issued
the impugned order on 03.09.2022 detailing 164 non-
teaching staff and 21 professors of respondent no.4-
University for election duty.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits
that the said decision dated 4th January, 2016 in WPMS
No.10 of 2016 is not attracted since that decision was
rendered while interpreting Section 12BC of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, whereas the present elections
are being conducted under the Uttarakhand Panchayati
Raj Act, 2016.
10. We find absolutely no merit in this submission
of learned counsel for respondent no.3. Section 131 of
the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 is pari
materia with Section 12BC of the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947. Section 131 (1) & (2) are relevant for our
3
purpose and these provisions read as follows:-
"131. Other provisions related to the electoral- (1)
Subject to the supervision and control of State Election
Commission, the District Magistrate shall supervise the
conduct of all elections of Chairman and Vice-chairman
and members of Panchayats in the district and shall
perform all related functions to it.
(2) Every local authority and the management of
every educational institution receiving grant-in-aid from
the State Government in the district shall, when so
required by the District Magistrate make available to him
or to any other officer appointed by the District Magistrate
as Nirvachan Adhikari, Sahayak Nirvachan Adhikari in
accordance with the directions issued by the State Election
Commission, such staff as may be necessary for the
performance of any duties in connection with such
election.
(3) ............."
11. From a reading of sub-section (2) of Section
131, it is clear that it is only the management of an
educational institution which is receiving grant-in-aid
from the State Government in the district which may be
required by the District Magistrate to make available to
him or to any other officer appointed by him as an
Election Officer, Assistant Election Officer, such staff as
may be necessary for the performance of any duties in
connection with such elections.
12. The action of respondent no.3 in detailing the
146 non-teaching staff and 21 professors of respondent
no.4 is clearly in the teeth of the aforesaid provision
and the judgment of this Court in WPMS No.10 of 2016
dated 04.01.2016. In fact, this conduct tantamounts to
contempt of Court since he has willfully and deliberately
disregarded the said judgment of the Court. Even
though the appellant and the other employees of
respondent no.4-deemed to be University cannot be
detailed for election duty for a forthcoming elections,
considering the fact that it is too late at this stage to
4
require the respondents to detail other persons who
could be detailed for such duty, we are not interfering
with the impugned order. We, however, express our
anguish and disapproval of the manner in which
respondent no.3 has proceeded in the matter.
13. Respondent no.3 had been put to notice that
the employees of respondent no.4 could not be detailed
for election duty, as early as on 19.07.2022. He sat
over the matter; ignored the judgment in WPMS No.10
of 2016, and; passed the impugned order at the last
minute i.e. on 03.09.2022 detailing the employees of
respondent no.4-University for election duty. If he had
any doubts in the matter, he should have corresponded
with respondent no.4 in response to their letter dated
19.07.2022 well in time.
14. We, however, direct that the respondent-
authorities shall be bound to pay damages to the
non-teaching staff as well as to the teaching faculty of
respondent no.4 who are detailed for election duty for
the elections to be conducted on 26.09.2022.
15. We further make it clear that the employees
of respondent no.4 University shall not be detailed for
any further election duty in relation to the election
process in question, or in relation any other elections.
16. The appeal stands disposed of with the above
directions.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 21st September, 2022
SS/RB
