The District Election Officer has the power to appoint any person as Presiding Officer for elections under Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the deputation of government servants to election duty does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution or change their service conditions.

1. Vide this order two writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 2263 and 2272 of 1992) are being disposed of.

2. In these writ petitions, petitioners are mostly Government servants and in one of the petitions some of the petitioners are employees of Semi-Government Corporations. They have been appointed as Presiding Officer for holding elections of Lok Sabha and State Assembly in the State of Punjab which are scheduled to be held on 19/02/1992. Annexure P-1 in CWP No. 2263 is the order dated 11/02/1992 passed by District Election Officer (Deputy Commissioner) Sangrur. This order has been passed in the exercise of powers under Sec. 26 of the Representation of the People Act (for short called the Act). Conditions for deputing such persons as Presiding Officers are also mentioned in this order. Some of them may be noted :-

i) The petitioners would be getting half months salary as bonus; ii) Normal T.A.; iii) 1 1/4 times of the entitled D.A.; iv) Free boarding and lodging; and v) Ex-gratia payment to next of kin of Rs. 2,00,000.00 in case of death within 120 days of the notification of polls in Punjab.

In response to this order the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, passed orders like Annexure P. 2/02/1992 deputing for election duty in Sangrur district of Punjab. Such a letter is addressed to one of the petitioners. It is taken that similar letters were issued to other petitioners. Almost similar Annexures have been attached with the other writ petition.

3. For paucity of time notices could not be issued to the respondents and we have given full hearing to counsel for the petitioners. 3A. Three questions have been argued by counsel for the petitioners which are briefly noticed as under :-

1) That the order Annexure P. 1 has been passed in violation of the provision of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 2) That the order Annexure P. 1 has been passed without following the procedure as prescribed under different provisions of the Representation of the People Act; and 3) The District Election Officer was not competent to pass the order Annexure P. 1.

4. On going through several provisions of the Representation of the People Act, we notice that the process of election is required to be completed within a short span of time and those provisions have been made to enable the authorities to act promptly and make all necessary arrangements for conducting the elections. As presently to be discussed, District Election Officer, in exercise of power under Sec. 26 of the Act could appoint any person as Presiding Officer. This power is not only to be exercised in respect of Government servants but could be exercised qua other persons. The question of discrimination as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution will not arise. Firstly no person can say that since some one has been appointed Presiding Officer whereas his name has been ignored. Likewise no one can say that he should not have been appointed and somebody elses name has not been considered. In the democratic process which is to be followed in conducting elections under the aforesaid Act only the persons authorised under the Act could call upon such person, if the authority considers appropriate, to perform the duty. No procedure was required to be followed in the selection of Presiding Officers. The only embargo contained in Sec. 26 of the Act is that such persons would not be appointed as presiding officers who were employed by or on behalf of a person working for a candidate in or about the election. The applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution in the facts aforesaid is entirely misconceived.

5. In the grounds, reference was also made to article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure prescribed by law. It was argued that because of the disturbed conditions in Punjab, persons could not be deputed on election duty there, as their life or personal liberty would be jeopardised. This c