WP (C) 5019/2008

Page 1 of 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 5019/2008

Date of order: August 20, 2008

AKHIL DILLI PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH

(REGD.)

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents

Through Mr. P.C. Chopra with Mr.S.K.

Mendiratta, Advocate for ECI.

Mr. N.Waziri with Mr. V.K. Tandon,

Advocate for GNCTD.

Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate for MCD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in Digest?

Yes

O R D E R

1.

This petition filed by Akhil Dilli Prathamik Shikshak Sangh under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following relief:

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ quashing the

directive of the respondent dated 25.4.2008

and similar other directives whereby the

MCD teachers have been directed to carry

out verification of voters I-card in addition

to their normal duty of teaching which is

contrary to general public interest and

breach of fundamental rights of the children

below 14 years of age.”

2.

The question of deploying teachers employed in schools run by the

state government or municipal corporations for work connected with the

conduct of elections, including revision of electoral rolls in terms of the

2008:DHC:2410-DB

WP (C) 5019/2008

Page 2 of 10

Representation of the People Act 1950 („RP Act 1950‟), was considered by

the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. St. Mary’s School

(2008) 2 SCC 390. The said decision was rendered in an appeal filed by the

Election Commission of India against the judgment dated 11^th August 2004

passed by this Court in WP (C) 1076 of 2003 in which a statement was

recorded that the respondents Government of the National Capital Territory

of Delhi („GNCTD‟), the New Delhi Municipal Council („NDMC‟) and the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi („MCD‟) had accepted that the services of

the teachers would be utilized for non-teaching purposes only on a day

which was not a working day for the students. Before the Supreme Court it

was contended by the Election Commission of India that under Article 324

(6) of the Constitution of India the Central Government and State

Government have a duty to make available to the Election Commission of

India adequate staff for the discharge of its functions and powers of

superintendence, direction and control of elections under Article 324 of the

Constitution. A reference was made to Section 29 of the RP Act 1950 which

mandates that every local authority shall, when so requested by the Chief

Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any electoral registration

officer such staff as is necessary for the performance of the duties in

connection with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. It was

observed by the Supreme Court that (SCC, p.402): “the question if the right

to exercise franchise is an important one…. right to education is also no less

important being a fundamental right.” Thereafter the Supreme Court, while

dismissing the appeal of the Election Commission of India, observed as

under (SCC, p.403):

“33. We would, however, notice that the

Election

Commission

before

us

also

2008:DHC:2410-DB

WP (C) 5019/2008

Page 3 of 10

categorically stated that as far as possible

teachers would be put on electoral roll

revision works on holidays, non-teaching

days and non-teaching hours, whereas non-

teaching staff shall be put on duty any time.

We, therefore, direct that all teaching

staff shall be put on the duties of roll

revisions