Mere violation of the directions issued by the Election Commission under Art.324 of the Constitution does not give a handle to a person to challenge his transfer unless the transfer is made at a stage when the actual election process has commenced and the officer has been assigned a specific role by the Commission in the conduct of the election.

S.ALI AHMAD, J.

1. The petitioner was posted as Subdivisional Officer of Muzaffarpur West Subdivision. By the order dated 6-1-1990 (Annexure-5), he was transferred to report in the department of Personnel and another officer, namely, Badri Nath Prasad Verma, respondent No. 7, was posted as Sub-divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur West. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that it is in violation of the direction issued by the Election Commission.

2. The Election Commission issued directions from time to time under Art.324 of the Constitution of India asking the State Government not to transfer its officers and staff, who were connected with the conduct of the election. The first direction in the series was Annexure-I a letter dated 26th July, 1989, written by the Secretary to the Commission to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories. This letter, inter alia, states that since the elections to the Lok Sabha and to the Legislative Assemblies in some of the States, including Bihar, were due, therefore, a ban should be imposed on the transfers of officers and staff connected with the conduct of election. In the said communication, the classes of officers and staff, who could be said to have connection with the conduct of election were identified. The Chief Secretary of the State consequently issued letters to all the Heads of Departments and concerned authorities drawing their attention to the letter contained in Annexure-1 (sent by the Secretary to the Election Commission) and requested them to comply with the directions. Although there are some more communications between the Election Commission and the State Government on the subject before the Lok Sabha Elections were over, but they are not relevant for the purpose of this case as the petitioner was not transferred prior to the conclusion of the Lok Sabha Election. The petitioner, as we have said above, was transferred by Annexure-5, an order dated 6-1-1990. Before 6-1-1990 and after the Lok Sabha Elections another direction contained in Annexure-3 was received. The directions were sent to the State Government by telex. It reads as follows:-

"General Election to Legislative Assembles 1990 in pursuance of decision taken at the meeting of Chief Electoral Officers held on 14th Dec., 1989 in Commission Secretariat, the ban on transfer of officers which was imposed, vide Commissions letter No. 434/1/89 dated 26th July, 1989 may be treated as reimposed till the general elections to Legislative Assemblies due in February-March, 1990 are completed. All other instructions contained in Commissions letter of 26th July, 1989 will be followed . . . . . . . A copy of the said letter is enclosed with post copy".

The Election Commission, it appears, received certain reports that the directions issued by it were not being observed. It, therefore, sent another letter dated 26th December, 1989, to several State Governments drawing their attention to Art.324 of the Constitution of India and saying that the violation of the instructions without clearance from the Commission will be viewed as violation of not only Art.324 but also an attempt to interfere with the process of free and fair election. This letter is contained in Annexure-4. The petitioner says that in spite of the directions issued by the Election Commission contained in Annexures-3 and 4 and also Annexure-2, the State Government transferred the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure-5.

3. It appears that the petitioner did not hand over charge in pursuance of Annexure-5, the order of transfer. An order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 17th January, 1990 was issued by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur saying that the petitioner will be deemed to have been relieved in the forenoon of 18th January, 1990 even if he did not hand over charge. As a result of this order, the petitioner stood relieved from the post of Sub-divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur West with effect from forenoon of 18t