The Calcutta High Court has that the Election Commission’s constitutional power under Article 324(6) and statutory power under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 authorise it to requisition eligible staff from government-controlled colleges and universities for election duty, including appointment as presiding officers, and such appointment cannot be treated as illegal merely because college teachers claim parity of rank or pay with other officials, particularly when the statutory and handbook-defined roles of observer, sector officer and presiding officer are distinct and not hierarchically interchangeable.
The Court further held, prima facie, that a writ court ought not to cancel such appointments without properly considering the constitutional mandate under Article 324, the scheme of the 1951 Act, and the practical impact on the conduct of imminent elections, especially where the pleadings do not establish that the concerned teachers were in fact placed under lower-ranked personnel.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that under Section 20B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an observer must be an officer of the Government, and therefore the contention of the writ petitioner that college teachers should be appointed as observers, micro-observers or similar officers was not tenable in law. The Bench examined the statutory role of a presiding officer under Sections 26 and 27 of the 1951 Act and noted that the presiding officer is higher in rank than the polling officer and is in charge of the polling station, with the duty to keep order and ensure that the poll is taken fairly.
On the basis of the Hand Book on Observers and the Hand Book on Presiding Officers, the Bench found that the fields of operation of observers and presiding officers are different, that observers do not exercise a controlling function over presiding officers, and that the position of a sector officer is also not superior to that of a presiding officer, who remains overall in charge of the polling station.
The Court observed that the petition did not demonstrate how any individual member had been placed under a person less qualified, lower in rank, or drawing lesser income, and that the supplementary affidavit referring to stenographers, typists and workshop instructors being made sector officers did not establish that presiding officers had been placed below such officers.
The Bench further observed, prima facie, that the Circular of 2023 expressly stated that it was issued in supersession of all previous instructions, and therefore the contention that the Circular of 2010 still continued without being superseded was not acceptable at that stage. The Bench held, prima facie, that Article 324(6) of the Constitution and Section 159 of the 1951 Act clearly permit requisition of staff for election work from universities and other institutions controlled or financed by the Government, and since the aggrieved members were employees of colleges fully controlled by the State Government, their appointment as presiding officers was, prima facie, neither illegal nor contrary to the constitutional or legislative mandate.
The Bench also noted that the question whether unavoidable circumstances existed for appointing a large number of teachers as presiding officers would be decided at the final hearing of the appeal, but at the interim stage it found the timing of the Single Judge’s order, passed five days before the scheduled election while training was ongoing, likely to create a chaotic situation because the Commission would not be able to requisition and train fresh presiding officers in time.
Briefly, the appeal was filed by the Election Commission of India, the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, against the judgment dated April 17, 2026, by which the Single Judge had, inter alia, held that the Election Commission was free to appoint the petitioners as per their rank and salary and in conformity with the Circular dated February 16/17, 2010.
The petitioner was the President of the West Bengal Government College Teachers’ Association and had filed the petition on the ground that its members were aggrieved by being requisitioned for election duty and appointed as presiding officers at polling stations. The members had not raised any individual grievance, and some members had already accepted the appointment and undergone training.
The petition alleged that the Election Commission had failed to record reasons for engaging college teachers as presiding officers and had acted contrary to its Circular dated February 16, 2010, which stated that Group A equivalent senior officers including teaching staff of universities and colleges should not be drafted for polling duties in polling station premises except for specific reasons to be recorded in writing where such appointments became unavoidable.
The further case of the petitioner was that the members had objected to such deployment and sought allotment of other duties such as observer, micro-observer and similar assignments commensurate with their rank and pay matrix, but instead of hearing them, the Commission issued show cause notices.
The appellants relied on Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to contend that the Election Commission has constitutional and statutory authority to requisition staff, including from universities and institutions substantially controlled or financed by the Government, for election work.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, along with Advocates Anamika Pandey, Sanskriti Agarwal, Rishika Pandey, and Ghanshyam Pandey, for the Appellants
Senior Advocate Abhratosh Majumder, along with Advocates Subhasis Chakraborty, Aditya Mondal, S. Chakraborty, and Sushmita Singh, for the Respondents
