ORDER

1. These writ petitions are taken up for analogous hearing on a Court Slip allowed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent-M.P. State Election Commission has filed an application seeking vacation of stay as was granted by Coordinate Benches on 27.6.2022 and 24.6.2022, when these applications have been marked to this Court.

3. The issues raised in both the petitions are common. They have been filed respectively on behalf of Employees Provident Fund Organization and Jabalpur Division Insurance Employees Union (JDIEU), raising an important legal issue that petitioners or their employees do not fall within the four corners of the legal provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1994” for short) or the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1995” for short).

4. Chapter-III of the Rules of 1994 provides for Administrative Machinery for conducting elections. It is submitted that rule 11 of Rules of 1994, provides for Officers and Staff. Rules 11 and 17 are important which read as under :-

“11. Officers and Staff for conducting elections. --

(1) The State Government shall, when so requested by the Election commission make available to the Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the Election Commission under the Act and these rules.

(2) All the officers and Members of the staff appointed or deployed for preparation of Voters’ list and conduct of election of any Municipality under the Act or these rules, shall function under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.

(3) The Commission may assign such duties and functions to officers and members of staff appointed or deployed under sub-rule (1) and invest them with such powers, in relation to such areas, as it may deem necessary or consider fit in relation to conduct of elections and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

17. Appontment of Presiding and Polling Officers.--

(1) The Returning Officer shall with the prior approval of the District Election Officer appoint a Presiding Officer for each polling station and such polling officer or officers to assist the presiding officer, as he deems necessary:

Provided that no person who is not in the employment of the State Government or a local authority or any public undertaking of the State Government, shall be appointed as Presiding Officer.”

5. First Proviso below rule 17 of the Rules of 1994 clearly provides that no person who is not in the employment of the State Government or a local authority or any public undertaking of the State Government shall be appointed as Presiding Officer.

6. Similarly, reading provisions of Rules of 1995, it is pointed out that rule 17 is similar to rule 11 of the Rules of 1994 and rule 24 is similar to rule 17 of the Rules of 1994.

7. It is submitted that under rule 24(1) (iv) of Rules of 1995, it is provided that no person, who is not any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a provincial or State Act, or which is not controlled or not financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly by the State, shall not be appointed as Presiding Officer.

8. Reading aforesaid provisions, it is submitted that since petitioners are neither the employees of an institution concerned or undertaking which is established by or under a provincial or State Act, or which is controlled or financed wholly or substantially by the funds provided directly or indirectly by the State Government, they cannot be appointed as Presiding Officer and, therefore, the decision of the Election Commission to appoint members of the Petitioner Organization, is per se inappropriate and illegal.

9. Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel for the State Election Commission in support, draws attention of th