The Calcutta High Court set aside the Election Commission of India decision to appoint college professors as presiding officers, citing violation of its own rules. The Court held that no proof of “unavoidable circumstances” was given, making the appointments legally unsustainable.
The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an order issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) that had appointed assistant and associate professors from government colleges as presiding officers for the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections.
Justice Krishna Rao held that the Election Commission failed to justify why such appointments were necessary, despite being given multiple opportunities by the Court to explain its decision. The Court observed that there was no material on record to prove that appointing college professors to polling duties was unavoidable, which is a requirement under the Commission’s own guidelines.
ALSO READ: Mamata Banerjee Demands Justice for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims, Slams Centre
“This Court finds that the authorities failed to produce any document to show that due to the some unavoidable circumstances, the authorities have taken a decision for appointment of the petitioners as a presiding officer in the polling booth,”
the Court noted.
The Court further clarified that while the Election Commission has the authority to appoint officials for election duties, such power is not absolute. It must follow its own circulars, especially those that require proper reasoning in exceptional situations.
“This Court finds that the authorities, without taking any decision, has appointed the petitioners who are working as assistant professor or associate professor in different college of the state of West Bengal as presiding officers in violation of the circular dated February 2010. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioners as presiding officers in the polling booth are set aside and quashed.”
The case arose from a petition filed by assistant professors challenging their appointment as presiding officers in polling booths. When the matter was first heard on April 13, the petitioners relied on an Election Commission communication which clearly stated that Group A equivalent officers, including teaching staff, should not be assigned polling duties unless there are unavoidable circumstances, and such reasons must be recorded in writing.
Taking note of this, the Court directed the Election Commission to produce documents explaining the necessity of such appointments.
When the case was heard again on April 16, the Commission failed to provide any justification and instead requested more time. The Court granted one last opportunity and asked the Commission to clearly disclose the basis of its decision.
During the final hearing on Friday, the Court closely examined whether the Commission had followed its own guidelines. It repeatedly asked which circular was applicable and sought proof of “unavoidable circumstances” that justified the appointments.
Senior Advocate Soumya Majumdar, appearing for the Election Commission, argued that a circular dated June 7, 2023 had replaced earlier instructions. He also submitted that due to the large scale of elections, covering nearly 90,000 polling booths, strict compliance with rank and pay-based deployment may not always be practical. Additionally, he argued that the petition was filed at a late stage and was essentially seeking a change in assigned duties.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, representing the petitioners, argued that the issue was mainly about following proper procedure. He stated that the Commission is legally bound to record specific reasons before appointing Group A officers like professors to polling duties.
He also pointed out inconsistencies in the deployment process, highlighting that lower-ranked staff such as typists and stenographers were being assigned higher roles like sector officers, while professors were made presiding officers. According to him, this showed that the Commission failed to properly consider rank, pay, and status as required by its own rules.
At one stage, the Court raised concerns about whether its intervention might disrupt the election process and asked,
“What will happen to the election, Mr. Bhattacharya, if any order is passed?”
Responding to this, Bhattacharya assured the Court that there would be no disruption, stating,
“No difficulty, my lord, there are huge officers in the reserve pool. The Election Commission, my lord, never recruits the officers, my lord, only with one individual. They have a huge reserve pool. The election is not going to be affected, these are all imaginary apprehensions raised by the persons responsible for conducting it.”
While setting aside the appointments, the Court made a limited exception for those professors who had already completed training and were willing to perform election duties.
“This order will not affect the members of the society (professors) who have already undergone training in terms of the order issued by the Election Commission,”
the Court directed.
The Court also clarified that the Election Commission can still assign duties to the petitioners, but such roles must match their rank, pay, and status, and must be in accordance with applicable guidelines.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Shamim Ahmed, Srijib Chakraborty, Subhasis Chakraborty, Aditya Mondal and Sushmita Kumari Singh. Additional counsel including Shamim Ahmed, Ambiya Khatun, Md Nasirul Haque, Reshma Khatun, Subnam Mostari and Huma Shakil also appeared for the appellants. Advocate Anamika Pandey represented the Election Commission.
Case Title:
Rupa Banerjee Nee Samjpati v. The Election Commission of India & Ors
Click Here to Read More Reports On Faculty Appointment
