Calcutta HC Quashes Poll Duty Order
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the appointment of the petitioners, who are Assistant Professors in different government colleges in West Bengal, as Presiding Officers in polling booths for the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Election, 2026. Justice Krishna Rao passed the order on 17 April 2026 in Rupa Banerjee Nee Samjpati v. The Election Commission of India & Ors., WPA 9020 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026.
The petitioners challenged their appointment as Presiding Officers for polling booths in the Assembly election scheduled to be held on 23 April 2026 and 29 April 2026. Their case was that they were serving as Assistant Professors in different government colleges in the State of West Bengal, and although they hold posts of Assistant Professors, they had been assigned the work of Presiding Officers without considering their pay level. The order records the petitioners’ submission that Central Government Class I or Group A officers / IAS / IPS / equivalent cadres at Level 10 of the current pay matrix receive an entry-level basic pay of Rs. 56,100, which is marginally lower than that of college and university teachers under GSR 721(E) dated 25 July 2016.The petitioners also relied on the circular dated 16 February 2010 on requisition of staff for election purposes, which, according to the order, categorically states that Group A equivalent senior officers, including teaching staff of universities and colleges, should not be drafted for polling duties in polling station premises without specific reasons being recorded in writing by the District Election Officer where such appointment becomes unavoidable
The matter was first taken up on 13 April 2026, when counsel for the Election Commission of India sought time to produce the record to show that the petitioners had been appointed as Presiding Officers due to unavoidable circumstances. The matter was again heard on 16 April 2026, but even on that date the respondents failed to produce the documents, and the case was adjourned.
When the matter was taken up thereafter, Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Senior Advocate for the Election Commission of India, relied on a circular dated 7 June 2023 and argued that earlier circulars had been superseded. According to the order, the 2023 circular clarified that while drawing up the seniority list of officials required for election duty, the District Election Officer should consider the pay, rank and status of nominated officials and classify them accordingly for randomization, and that a Presiding Officer should be of higher scale, grade or rank than all Polling Officers appointed in his group. The order also records the Commission’s submission that relative position in cadre or organisation may also be considered and not merely pay scale.
The Election Commission further submitted that there were approximately 90,000 booths for the election on 23 and 29 April 2026, making it difficult to prepare the seniority list without overlap. It also argued that orders had been issued to the petitioners on 20 March 2026, that some members had complied while others had not, leading to issuance of show-cause notices. The petitioners had replied to those notices and then filed the writ petition at the last moment, allegedly to disturb the election process.
The Commission also referred to the petitioners’ show-cause replies, in which they had stated that they were either to be exempted from election duty as Presiding Officers or, for the smooth conduct of the election, were willing to perform election duties commensurate with their rank and salary and in conformity with the Election Commission’s orders. It was argued that once they had accepted willingness to work for election duty, the stage had not yet come to decide the precise post on which they would be deployed. The respondents additionally relied on an unreported judgment of a coordinate Bench in Sri Kaushik Bandopadhyay & Ors. v. The Election Commission of India & Ors., WPA 11567 of 2024 dated 1 May 2024, submitting that a similar issue had previously arisen concerning Assistant Professors of Government Colleges.
The petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit disclosing documents showing that there were 6,81,541 Group B posts available in the State of West Bengal. They alleged that despite the availability of such officials, the authorities had chosen persons working as Professor / Assistant Professor / Associate Professor in different government colleges to perform duties as Presiding Officers without considering their rank, pay scale and status. The petitioners also relied on an order dated 17 March 2026 showing that three persons working as Stenographer, Supervisor and Workshop Instructor had been appointed as Section Officers / Assistant Sector Officer for the election.
Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate, argued that the 2010 circular clearly stated that Group A equivalent senior officers, including college and university teaching staff, should not be drafted for polling duties in polling station premises unless specific reasons were recorded in writing by the District Election Officer and such appointments had become unavoidable. He submitted that despite several opportunities granted by the Court, the authorities had failed to produce any document explaining under what unavoidable circumstances the petitioners had been appointed as Presiding Officers. He also distinguished the coordinate Bench decision in Sri Kaushik Bandopadhyay, pointing out that in that case the District Election Officer, Howrah had provided reasons for the appointments, whereas no such material was produced in the present case.
The Court held that the respondents’ reliance on the 7 June 2023 circular was insufficient to establish that the 16/17 February 2010 circular had been superseded, noting that the 2023 circular did not mention the February 2010 circular. The Court therefore found that it could not be said that the 2010 circular stood superseded.
Justice Krishna Rao then found that the authorities had failed to produce any document showing the unavoidable circumstances on the basis of which they had taken the decision to appoint the petitioners as Presiding Officers. The Court held that without taking any such decision and without establishing unavoidable circumstances, the authorities had appointed petitioners working as Assistant Professors / Associate Professors in different government colleges as Presiding Officers in violation of the circular dated 16/17 February 2010. On that basis, the Court set aside and quashed the appointment of the petitioners as Presiding Officers in polling stations.
The Court also considered CAN 1 of 2026, filed by the intervenor, and held that the CAN application was not maintainable in the writ petition. It accordingly dismissed the CAN application, while clarifying that dismissal of the CAN would not prevent the applicant from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
At the same time, the Court recorded the submission on behalf of the Election Commission / District Election Officer that the petitioners were a society and that many of the members of the society had already joined training and were ready and willing to perform election duty. The Court therefore clarified that if any members of the society had already undergone training and were ready and willing to perform their duties as Presiding Officers, the order would not prevent them from proceeding with such appointment. The Court further noted that in their show-cause replies the petitioners had expressed willingness to perform election duties commensurate with their rank and salary in conformity with the Election Commission’s orders. Accordingly, it held that if the Election Commission intended to take the services of the petitioners, it would be free to pass appropriate orders appointing them as per their rank, salary and in conformity with the circular dated 16/17 February 2010. The Court also clarified that its order would not affect the members of the society who had already undergone training in terms of the Election Commission’s order.
The writ petition, WPA 9020 of 2026, was disposed of in the above terms. The Court also directed that urgent photostat certified copies of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with necessary formalities.
