Krishan Narayan Bhatt vs State of U.P. & Ors.

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties as well as Sri O.P. Srivastava, Advocate, who is present for the opposite party No.5.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the rejection of the representation vide order dated 8409. The case of the petitioner is that he is 50% handicapped and is being sent for the election duty. In this regard he is claiming exemption under a letter, which has been written by Additional Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, U.P., Lucknow vide his order dated 12309 in ClauseI of this letter only this much is written that such officials should be sent to the election duty, who are otherwise, healthy and competent. The petitioner submits that he is physically handicapped and his right eye was injured in the year 1999, as given in Para 8 of the writ petition.

The learned Standing counsel has pointed out, that since 1999, the petitioner has been working in the department and the medical certificate has been obtained by him only on 10.03.09 and it is only for the purposes of not going for the election duty that this medical certificate has been submitted. There is no mention in the writ petition that the petitioner ever claimed any benefit under the visually handicapped person. Since 1999 the petitioner has been performing every other duty without any difficulty.

The case of the petitioner is that certain otherpersons have been exempted from being sent to the election duty and the petitioner is being discriminated by the opposite parties and has been directed to go for the election duty.

No ground for discrimination has been alleged in the writ petition and on specific query by this Court, the petitioner could not allege any mala fide on behalf of the opposite parties. Why the opposite parties have discriminated and chosen him specifically is not clear, neither alleged by the petitioner. No fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned order passed by opposite party No.3. Order appears to be absolutely justified.

In a Parliamentary democracy it is bounden duty of every citizen of this country to uphold the rule of law and the institutions which have been envisaged in the Constitution of India. To attain the said goal Government machinery has to put in great labour with dedication and sincerity. The officers cannot deny to do the duties assigned to them. The petitioner belongs to the Police department, which is even otherwise considered to be a disciplined department and the duty is cast upon the police department more than any other department to facilitate the election, in which the people of India elect their Government to rule this country. The lame excuse by the petitioner for not going to the election duty can only be deplored by this Court. Thousands of employees including ladies have been sent for election duty and the petitioner is no exception. No discrimination has been caused to him and no violation of his right has been proved. The petitioner has approached this Court only to use the authority of this Court for personal benefit on flimsy ground leaving the large interest of the nation and his duty aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.