AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The petitioner, a Professor in Economics and a Principal of Dayananda Saga; College of Science, Arts & Commence, Bangalore, when issued with a communication dated 17-02-2009 Annexure-A by the 1st respondent to furnish the list of officers to prepare a data base of officials to be drafted for duty in the ensuing Parliamentary elections, claims to have prepared a list, which, by letter dated 16.3.2009, Annexure-B, was handed over to the Joint Director of Collegiate education, on instructions, who in turn was to transmit the same to the 1st respondent. It is the allegation of the petitioner that on 30-03-2009 at about 10.30 a.m., was sewed with the communication dated 20-03-2009 Annexure-"C" of the 1st respondent. On the very same day, the petitioner claims to have handed over his letter, Annexure-"D". It is the further allegation of the petitioner that on the very same day, the petitioner received a notice dated 20-08-2009 Annexure-"E" by registered post acknowledgement due stating that the petitioner had not furnished details of the officers working in the institution and on refusal to furnish the details, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken u/s 159 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, for short R.P. Act. In response to the said letter, petitioner claims to have submitted a written reply dated 31-03-2009 Annexure-"F" informing the handing over of the list of officials to the Joint. Director of Collegiate Education and also the reasons as to why the petitioner should not be drafted for election duty and accordingly sought for exemption. In addition, it is alleged that on 9-4-2009 at about 1.45 p.m., a person representing the 1st respondent sought to serve on the petitioner a copy of the order dated 27-03-2009 of appointment as a Presiding Officer, for polling duty, which when not received by the petitioner, the officer left the college premises. Thereafter, the petitioner states that he collected a copy of the said letter dated 27-03-2009 Annexure-"G" which was affixed to the Notice Board. It is further stated that the 1st respondent issued yet another show cause notice dated 13-04-2009, Annexure-"H", to which an appropriate reply Annexure-"J" was delivered by hand on 17-04-2009 in the office of the 1st respondent.
According to the petitioner, 2503 is the total student strength, for the academic year 2008-09 and being the head of the institution, is responsible to supervise admission, pre-examination processes, etc., within the time limited by the Bangalore University, being a plenty left no time to attend to poll duty. Lastly it is stated that on 1-4-2009, the petitioner met with a motor accident and having suffered grievous injury was advised rest, yet another reason not to attend to poll duty. Hence, this petition to quash the show cause notices dated 20-03-2009 Annexure-"E"; 18-04-2009 Annexure-"H" and the order dated 27-03-2009 Annexure-"G" of the 1st respondent, in addition to a mandamus to the 1st impendent to consider the petitioner''s replies dated 31-03-2009 and 17-04-2009 Annexures "F" and "J".
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointment of the petitioner as a Presiding Officer for election duty by order dated 27-03-2009 Annexure-"G'''' by the District Election Officer is illegal arid unsustainable, for having not considered the petitioner''s explanation to the show cause notice dated 20-03-2009 Annexure-"C". Elaborating on the said submission, it is pointed out that the petitioner being the head of the institution, had enough and more duties accompanying the post of Principal and on account of paucity of time, was not in a position to discharge duties as Presiding Officer, as well as attend the training programme. Even otherwise it is contended that the order dated 27-03-2009 Annexure-"G" to attend the training programme, was served on the pensioner only on 9-4-2009. The other reason, according to the learned Counsel is that the petitioner was singled out by the Election Commission since to his knowledge, no Principal of other First Grade College was drafted for election duty. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner having suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 1-4-2009 was advised rest and hence unable to attend poll duties.
Learned Counsel places reliance upon Paragraphs 22 and 28 of the reported opinion of the Apex Court in Election Commission of India Vs. St. Mary''s School and Others,
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings, what is manifest is that the petitioner a Principal of a College affiliated to Bangalore University though; requested by letter dt. 17.2.2009, Annexure-A of the District Election Officer, to furnish information in the prescribed format, of all the officials working in the college to prepare a data base for being drafted to discharge duties in the general election, as requited by Section 159 of the R.P. Act, did not respond. The petitioner''s assertion that he did not respond, on oral instruction of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education to forward the list of staff for being transmitted to the 1st respondent, is unacceptable as no material is forthcoming in that regard. it is perhaps for this reason that the Election Officer issued the letter dated 20-03-2009 Annexure-"C" informing the petitioner about the consequences of not furnishing the list of employees. The explanation dated 30-03-2009 Annexure-"D" of the petitioner is cryptic and does not, contain material particulars about the alleged instructions the Joint Director of Collegiate Education. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the show cause notice dated 20-03-2009 Annexure-"E" calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why action should not be taken against him u/s 159 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for non-compliance. The petitioner''s written explanation dated 31-03-2009 Annexure-"F" bringing to the notice of the authorities about the instructions issued by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education and the reasons not to draft the petitioner to election duty, in my considered opinion is a matter which is yet to be considered by the authorities and hence the challenge to the show cause notice Annexure-"E", is premature. So also, the subsequent show cause notice dated 13-04-2009 Annexure-"H" of the District Election Officer to which the petitioner claims to have submitted an explanation dated 17-04-2009 Annexure-"J", is also at large before the District Election Officer. Thus, the challenge to the show cause notice, Annexure-"H", too is premature.
It is no doubt true that education is a fundamental right and the Stale Government is under an obligation to impart education at all levels to its citizens. At the same time, the purpose of holding elections in a democratic set up is significant. Education of children cannot be neglected and it is in this view of the matter the Apex Court in St. Mary''s case, supra, held that "there is a necessity to maintain a balance between the two". The Apex Court further pointed out that it is for the Election Commission and its officers to formulate an effective scheme to ensure that services of large number of teachers are not requisitioned for poll duty, in the light of advent of technology.
In the instant ease, except for the self-serving statement of the petitioner that lie alone is responsible for the activities of the institution having no time to serve as a Presiding Officer of a Polling Booth in the general elections, is perse unacceptable. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the only person out of the teaching stall of the institution, drafted for election duty. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have made alternative arrangements so that, the Professors and Lecturers of the institution, in the absence of the petitioner would ensure the requirements of the students and that of the University are taken care of. More over, the date set out for Polling in the State, is declared a holiday for educational institutions. In my opinion, the order dated 27-03-2009 Annexure-"G" appointing the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of a Polling Booth in the general elections in the light of Section 159 of the R.P. Act, cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary calling for interference.
The Writ petition is accordingly rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to place additional explanation together with relevant material before the 1st respondent, by way of explanation to the show cause notice Annexure-"H" and if so done within a month from today, it is needless to state that the 1st respondent would consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law.