Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The petitioners had approached this Court praying therein for various reliefs on the ground that eligible teachers should not be debarred from voting in the elections of Teachers Constituencies in the U.P. Legislative Council.
The petitioners principle contentions were, firstly, that though they have submitted their applications for inclusion of their names in the voters' list, but that had not been considered by the respondents and consequently the names should be included and they be entitled to participate in the elections, failing which the electoral roll earlier prepared alone should be considered and the guidelines which are in force since 4.12.2009 be followed.
The second relief during the course of the arguments advanced before us is that though the Election Commission has notified the date for the process of various stages of elections, yet the Governor has not issued the requisite notification as contemplated under Section 16 of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1951').
We will first deal with the second contention as to whether the process of elections have been initiated by the Governor by issuing a notification under Section 16 of the Act, 1951. Though there was no specific averment to that effect in the petition, yet so as to enable us to consider the point, we had called upon the Counsel for the Election Commission to produce the notification and the same has been produced which has been published in the extraordinary gazette notification issued by the State of U.P. dated 15th of October, 2010 notifying the number of members to be elected and the date of retirement of the present incumbents who hold the office. It also clearly recites that it has been issued under Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Pursuant to that notification, the Election Commission issued a press note as also a notification setting out the various dates in the matter of the various dates of Elections. That being so, we are clearly of the opinion that there has been compliance. The Election Commission has therefore complied with the procedure considering Section 16 of the Act, 1951. In the light of the above, in our opinion, there is no merit in the contention as raised. Hence the same is rejected.
Now, we come to the first contention in the matter of exclusion of the names of voters whose cause has been espoused by the petitioners. The Election Commission issued a notification as guidelines in the matter dated 4th December, 2009 for the purpose of inclusion of the names of voters from Teachers Constituencies of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council considering 1st of November, 2009 as the qualifying date. The said guidelines also refer to the judgment of the learned Bench of this Court in the case of Madhyamik Vitta Viheen Vidyalaya Prabandhak Maha Sabha and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (supra) being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1269 (M/B) of 2008 decided on 5th of March, 2008.
The relevant paras of the guidelines may now be reproduced below :
" (vii) In the light of the Order of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 05.03.2008, in Writ Petition No.1269 (M/B) of 2008 (Madhyamik Vitta Viheen Vidyalaya Prabandhak Mahasabha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), the name of such teacher of unaided private schools shall also be included in the electoral rolls who intends to get his/her name enrolled in the voter list of the Teachers' Constituency and he/she approaches the ERO after getting a certificate/counter signature from the District Inspector of Schools that he/she is a bonafide teacher of the recognized institution having the required length of service and, whose standard is not below the standard of secondary school.
(viii) Applications in bulk whether submitted in person or by post, shall not be considered for inclusion by the ERO. However, the Head of the Institutions may forward the applications of all his staff together. One member of a family may also submit the Form 19 of other members of the same family and may get the certificate verified by producing original certificates in respect of each member."
We may also make it clear that the affidavit filed by the Election Commission in the petition earlier mentioned, the Election Commission has clearly stated that a teacher of a recognized secondary school, aided or non-aided is entitled to have his name included in the voters' list by virtue of para (vii). It has been set out that the teacher who intends to get the name included in the voters' list of teachers constituency, he/she can approach the ERO (Electoral Registration Officer) after getting a certificate/counter signature from the District Inspector of Schools that he/she is a bonafide teacher of the recognized Institution having the requisite length of service and, whose standard is not below the standard of a secondary school and the applications in bulk, whether submitted by a person or by post, shall not be considered for inclusion by the ERO. An exception has however been carved out whereby Head of the Institution may forward the applications of all the staff together.
Thus, the guidelines are clear on the procedure as to how the person can get his name included in the voters' list. It is not the case of the petitioners in the present case that they had applied or sent their claim to the ERO either personally or in the manner as set out in paragraph 8 of the notification. It is also not their case that thereafter the said application has been rejected by the ERO.
The case of the petitioners is that applications were sent to the District Inspector of Schools and apparently that may have been ssome inaction in issuing the certificate as required in terms of paragraph (vii) of the notification. The respondents, therefore, cannot be faulted if the names of the voters whose cause is espoused has not been included in the voters' list. In fact, in the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Madhyamik Vitta Viheen Vidyalaya Prabandhak Maha Sabha (supra), the learned Division Bench had also directed the District Inspector of Schools to verify the claim made by the teachers in the manner as set out therein, at least one month before the elections.
In the instant case, it appears that it is the case of the petitioners that the applications were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools before 14.02.2010.
Without going further into the issue, it appears that there has been a fault on the part of the office of the District Inspector of Schools but for that purpose the Election Commission cannot be faulted, as they have issued the guidelines and there is no challenge to the guidelines insofar as the present petition is concerned. The contention as raised now on behalf of the petitioners is therefore devoid of merits.
We, however, make it clear that hereinafter the District Inspector of Schools is duty bound to comply with the directions as contained in the judgment of this Court dated 5th of March, 2008. It is made clear that because of the failure of the District Inspector of Schools, genuine voters otherwise eligible should not be dis-entitled from having the names included in the voters' list. Any such act on the part of the District Inspector of Schools may amount to a misconduct and would be liable for action accordingly. However, in the instant case, it will not be possible for us to grant any relief to the petitioners at this stage when elections have been notified. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. for forwarding the judgment bringing it to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools throughout the State so that they comply with the directions of this Court without any failure.
With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.11.2010 VMA (F.I. Rebello, C.J.) (A.P. Sahi, J.)