The right to contest elections is not a fundamental right and can be reasonably restricted by the employer in the interest of maintaining discipline and efficiency in the workplace.

Headnote:
EMPLOYEES CONDUCT RULES - MALVIYA REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, JAIPUR - RULES 5 AND 6 - VALIDITY - RIGHT TO CONTEST ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - ARTICLE 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur, sought permission to contest the Assembly Elections but was denied by the respondent-society citing the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, which prohibit employees from participating in politics or elections. The petitioner challenged the validity of Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, arguing that they violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, are valid and binding on the employees of the respondent-society. The court found that the rules do not impose any unreasonable restriction on the exercise of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The court further held that the petitioner's right to contest the Assembly Elections is not a fundamental right and that he can be subjected to reasonable restrictions while he is in service.
Issues: 1. Whether Rules 5 and 6 of the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, are valid and binding on the employees of the respondent-society? 2. Whether the petitioner's right to contest the Assembly Elections is a fundamental right? 3. Whether the petitioner can be subjected to reasonable restrictions while he is in service?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rules 5 and 6 of the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, are valid and binding on the employees of the respondent-society because: a. The rules are in consonance with the object of the society, which is to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty among its employees. b. The rules are not arbitrary and have a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the society. c. The rules do not impose any unreasonable restriction on the exercise of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that the petitioner's right to contest the Assembly Elections is not a fundamental right because: a. The right to contest elections is not mentioned in the Constitution as a fundamental right. b. The right to contest elections can be reasonably restricted by the employer in the interest of maintaining discipline and efficiency in the workplace. 3. The court held that the petitioner can be subjected to reasonable restrictions while he is in service because: a. The petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of his employment, which include the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966. b. The restrictions imposed by the rules are reasonable and necessary to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, are valid and binding on the employees of the respondent-society and that the petitioner's right to contest the Assembly Elections is not a fundamental right.

JUDGMENT

1. - The petitioner who is an employee of the Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur and working as Lower Division Clerk in establishment section of the said college, has filed this writ petition seeking relief inter alia that the petitioner had submitted an application on 25.4.1958 before the college authorities for granting him permission to contest the Assembly 13. 1968 Cr. L.J. 1025 Elections but the said permission was declined by the respondent-Society by its letter dated 28.4.1988 vide Annexure-1 on the ground that under the Employees Conduct Rules, 1966 there is a specific bar to any of the employee to contest the Assembly Election and there is a further bar under the said rules for permitting any employee of the college to participate in politics and elections or from becoming member of any political party or to be associated with any political party or in organisation which takes part in politics, nor he shall take part and subscribe any aid or associate in any other manner in any political movement or activity.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent-college has been working as L.D.C. in the establishment section of the M.R.E.C., Jaipur. It has been contended in the writ petition that the respondent is a registered society under Societies Registration Act and hence being a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India being a registered society, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended in the writ petition that there are 15 Engineering Colleges in India, the respondent being one of the said colleges at Jaipur.

3. It has been further contended in the writ petition that the respondent had framed the M.R.E.C. Society Employees Conduct Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), for governing all the employees of the said College. Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules which are relevant for consideration of this court in deciding this writ petition are reproduced hereunder:

"Rule-5. Taking part in politics and election:

(1) No employee shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics not shall take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any manner, any political movement or activity.

(2) If any question arises whether a party is a political party or whether any organisation takes part in a politics, the decision of the Society thereon shall be final.

(3) No employee shall convass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in connection with, or take part in, an election to any legislature or local authority.

Provided that:

(i) an employee qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted:

(ii) an employee shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this sub-rule by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in the due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force.

Explanation:The display by an employee on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election, within the meaning of this sub-rule.

Note : An employee who has reason to believe that attempts are being made to induce him to break provisions of this rule by or on behalf of an official superior or superiors shall report the facts to the Competent Authority.

(2) Proposing or seconding the nomination of a candidate at an election or acting in a Polling agent shall be deemed as an active participation in the election".

"Rule 6. Demonstrations and strikes : No employee shall -

(i) engage himself or participate in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 Supreme(Raj) 870

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHArun Madan, J.Rajendra Kumbaj - AppellantVersusM.R.E.C. Society, Jaipur - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 279 of 1990.Decided On : 26-05-1995

The right to contest elections is not a fundamental right and can be reasonably restricted by the employer in the interest of maintaining discipline and efficiency in the workplace.

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Madan, J.
Rajendra Kumbaj - Appellant
Versus
M.R.E.C. Society, Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 279 of 1990.
Decided On : 26-05-1995