SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Ravi Prakash Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 5951 of 2024
Decided On : 02-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.M. Singh Royekwar.
For the Respondent: Anindya Shastri.

IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of obtaining prior permission from the State Election Commission for employee transfers during election periods is crucial to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.

Headnote:

ELECTIONS - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT, PARA-6 (KA); R.K. MITTAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2004 SCC ONLINE ALL 1772 - The court emphasized the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the State Election Commission for transferring employees during the election notification period, as outlined in the Model Code of Conduct. The court interpreted that any transfer order issued without such approval is deemed non est, thereby invalidating the transfer and ensuring adherence to the principles of free and fair elections.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), challenged a transfer order issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gonda, during the election notification period, arguing that it was illegal as it lacked prior approval from the State Election Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer order was issued without the necessary permission from the State Election Commission, violating the Model Code of Conduct. It concluded that such an order is non est in law and must be quashed to uphold the integrity of the election process.

Issues: Whether the transfer order issued during the election notification period without prior approval from the State Election Commission is valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any transfer of employees during the election notification period requires prior approval from the State Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections. The absence of such approval renders the transfer order invalid.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned transfer order and directed the petitioner to continue serving at his original post, while also allowing the other affected party to return to their previous position.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed order dated 31.07.2024, which reads as under:

    “1. Heard Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anindra Shastri, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 8.

2. Sri Yoyekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure No. 1), passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gonda, whereby the petitioner who is serving on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), has been transferred from Vikas Khand Wazirganj to Vikas Khand Mujehna, District-Gonda on the ground that the State Election Commission has notified election of Panchayat on 15.07.2024 (Annexure No. 2) and election for Block Wazirganj is to be conducted pursuant to the election notification.

3. As per Sri Royekwar, after the notification having been issued by the State Election Commission, the administrative authority cannot transfer an employee from one place to another place even in the same district without taking prior permission from the State Election Commission.

4. On being confronted learned counsel for the State Election Commission as to whether any permission/ approval has been given transferring the petitioner and the same query has been put from Sri Sandeep Sharma learned counsel for the State as to whether the authority concerned has taken consent from the Election Commission, both the counsels appearing for the opposite parties have requested that some short time may be given them to seek specific instructions on that point.

5. List/ put up this case on 02.08.2024 as fresh. On that date, this matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases.

6. Till the next date of listing, the status-quo as on today i.e. 31.07.2024, shall be maintained.”

3. Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing true copy of the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission, the same is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission and learned Standing Counsel, both, have stated that before issuing the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2024 no approval/ permission has been taken from the State Election Commission.

5. Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar has drawn attention of this Court towards para-6 (Ka) of the Model Code of Conduct, which categorically provides that during the currency period of election notification, no employee of the area would be transferred/ appointed/promoted and if such transfer etc. is necessary on account of compelling circumstances, prior permission/ approval from the State Election Commission would be required.

6. Sri Royekwar has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in re; R.K. Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2004 SCC Online All 1772, wherein the Division Bench has observed that transfer of an employee whose services are required in the election process for conducting the election smoothly, such exercise shall be regulated by the Election Commission in order to conduct the election free and fair; relevant para-23 thereof reads as under:

    “23. Transfer of the employees whose services are required in the electioneering process, may be restrained/regulated by the Election Commission in order to conduct the election free and fair, for the reason that a political party in power, may post the officers of its liking at a particular place for a definite purpose of some unlawful gain in the election and in order to curb such a situation/possibility, it may be necessary for the Election Commission to issue such kind of direction, and once such a direction is issued, it requires strict adherence. It is not that every direction issued by the Commission requires observance religiously but where the direction is being issued to ensure free and fair election, all other authorities are under obligation to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top