In a significant ruling ahead of the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Calcutta High Court set aside the appointment of several college teachers as Presiding Officers, holding that the decision violated established election guidelines.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by a group of Assistant Professors working in government colleges across West Bengal. They challenged their appointment as Presiding Officers for polling booths in the upcoming Assembly elections scheduled for April 23 and April 29, 2026.
The petitioners argued that their roles and pay scale placed them within a higher category of officers, and as per earlier Election Commission guidelines, such personnel should not ordinarily be assigned polling station duties unless unavoidable circumstances were recorded in writing.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act, Orders Immediate Release
They also pointed out inconsistencies, claiming that lower-ranked officials were assigned supervisory roles, while they were deployed at polling stations.
During the hearings, the Election Commission’s counsel contended that the scale of the election covering nearly 90,000 booths made strict adherence to rank-based deployment difficult. It was argued that overlaps could occur and that the petitioners had not demonstrated specific prejudice.
The Commission also relied on a 2023 circular, suggesting that earlier guidelines had been superseded and that rank could be assessed not just by pay scale but also by position within a cadre.
However, counsel for the petitioners maintained that the 2010 circular clearly restricted the deployment of Group A-equivalent officers, including college faculty, in polling duties unless justified by recorded reasons. They emphasized that despite multiple opportunities, authorities failed to produce any document showing such “unavoidable circumstances.”
Justice Krishna Rao noted that the authorities could not establish that the earlier 2010 circular had been formally superseded.
“The respondents failed to produce any document to show the unavoidable circumstances,” the Court observed, adding that the appointments appeared to have been made “without taking any decision” in line with the prescribed rules.
The Court also distinguished a previous judgment cited by the respondents, pointing out that in that case, reasons for such deployment had been recorded unlike in the present matter.
The Court held that appointing Assistant Professors and similar teaching staff as Presiding Officers, without recording reasons, was in violation of the applicable guidelines.
Accordingly, the appointments were set aside and quashed.
At the same time, the Court clarified that those members who had already undergone training and were willing to perform election duties would not be barred from continuing. It also allowed the Election Commission to reassign duties to the petitioners in accordance with their rank and pay, consistent with the 2010 circular.
The connected application was dismissed as not maintainable, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rupa Banerjee Nee Samjpati vs Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 9020 of 2026 (with CAN 1 of 2026)
Judge: Justice Krishna Rao
Decision Date: April 17, 2026
