ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by Election officer, Datia, whereby, respondent No.5 Brijendra Bhushan Khare has been appointed on the post of Electoral Supervisor for the purpose of conduct of Loksabha election in Distt. Datia.

The petitioner claims that he is authorized election agent of candidate contesting election on behalf of Indian National Congress and therefore, he is authorized to challenge the appointment of any ineligible person on the post of Electoral Supervisor, as the same may affect the election process adversely.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by appointing respondent No.5 on the post of Electoral Supervisor, the Distt. Election Officer has violated the provisions of M.P. Election Supervisor (Class 3) (Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules) 2013 and until and unless, the provisions are complied with, no one can be appointed as Electoral Supervisor. He prays for quashing of the order of appointment of respondent No.5 as Electoral Supervisor and in alternate, issuance of necessary direction to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 4 submits that Rules of 2013 are not applicable to the present matter as these rules are applicable on the recruitment of the employees of the election commission whereas, respondent no.5 has not been appointed as employee of the election commission and the services of respondent No.5 have been procured as per Section 159 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 which authorizes election officer to call for the employees of other departments for the purpose of performing duties in connection with the election. Section 159 of the Rules of 2013 reads as under :

"159. Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election work - :

(1). The authorities specified in sub-section (2) shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under clause (4) of article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election;

( 2 ) . The following shall be the authorities for the purposes of sub-section (1), namely:— (i). every local authority;

( i i ) . every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act;

(iii). a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(iv). any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government".

Counsel for the election commission further submits that the services of the respondent No.5 have been obtained temporarily assigning work for assisting the duties as per direction of Distt. Election Officer and therefore, there was no occasion to comply with Rules 2013. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 supporting the arguments advanced by counsel appearing for respondent No.1 & 4 further submits that the petition has been preferred by the petitioner with ulterior motive. No cogent reason has been assigned in the petition to interfere in the election process. Polling has already been taken place and only counting is left, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Electoral Supervisor by Distt. Election Officer for the purpose of Loksabha elections in accordance with the provisions of Section 159 of the Act of 1951 and there was no occasion for the Distt. Election Officer to comply with the provisions of the Rules of 2013. The rules have been formu