( 1 ) HEARD Shri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S. K. Mendiratta and Shri S. N. Srivastava for the Election Commission and Shri Pradeep Kumar for the State Government.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Election Commission of India dated 28-12-2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the subsequent transfer order dated 13-1-2002, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are U. P. Government servants Petitioner No. 1 is the S. P. City and petitioner No. 2 is Addl. S. P. (Yamuna Paar) Allahabad. Both the petitioners have been posted at Allahabad for more than four years. Petitioner No. 1 joined as Addl. S. P. City on 25-4-1998 and prior to that he was posted in 42 Bn. P. A. C. Naini, Allahabad and he has admittedly completed more than four years in Allahabad District. similarly petitioner No. 2 was posted as Addl. S. P. (Yamuna Paar) Allahabad on 25-4-1998 and prior to that he was posted as Addl. S. P. City Allahabad and thus admittedly he has also completed more than four years at Allahabad.

( 4 ) THE petitioners are challenging the impugned directives of the Election Commission of India dated 28-12-2001. Paragraph 3 of the said directive states that the Commission has directed those officers who have completed more than four years of stay in the same district should be moved out of the present district but should not be posted in their home district. In compliance with this directive of the Election Commission of India, the impugned transfer order has been passed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned directive of the Election Commission of India is arbitrary and beyond the powers vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. We do not agree with this submission. Article 324 (1) of the constitution states as under:-THE superintendence. , direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls, for the conduct of , all elections of Parliament and in the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission ). "

( 6 ) A perusal of the said provision shows that the Election Commission is incharge of the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections of the Parliament and to the State Legislature. The words superintendence, direction and control and the words conduct of elections are very wide words and thus they give power to the Election Commission to do all that is necessary to ensure free and fair elections so that the will of the people can be expressed thereby. In our opinion the impugned directions of the Election Commission are well within the powers conferred to it by Article 324 (1) of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned directive is arbitrary. We do not agree. We have been informed by Sri Mendiratta, learned counsel for the Election Commission that the reason for issuance of the above directive was that those officers who have completed four years in a particular district may have developed liaison with the politicians and other influential persons of the district and hence it would be conducive for ensuring fair elections that they should be moved out. Sri Mendiratta also stated that the same directive was issued in the election of 1998 and all elections thereafter, which were conducted by the Election Commission. The same directives have also been issued for all other States where elections are being currently held, namely, Uttaranchal, Manipur and Punjab.

( 8 ) WE are of the opinion that the impugned directive of the Election Commission is valid as it does not discriminate between different officers but a uniform directive has been issued for all the officers who have completed four years of stay in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document