# Nirbhay Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 1104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 26204 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nirbhay-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48720
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Mr. Manjive Shukla, Addl. C.S.C. for
Respondent Nos. 1,2,4,5 & 6, Mr. Rahul
Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 3, Mr.
O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Kaushlendra
Yadav,
Advocate
for
Respondent No. 7
8 All. Nirbhay Singh & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
1105
Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.
324 - Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Assistant
Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad Schools
deployed for revision of electoral roll -
Challenge to the same - S. 27, Prohibition of
deployment of teachers for non educational
purposes - Section 27 of the 2009 Act,
prohibits the deployment of teachers for
non-educational
purpose
-
However
following exceptions have been carved out:
decennial population census, disaster relief
duties, duties relating to elections to the
local authority or the St. Legislatures or
Parliament - 'duties relating to elections ' -
exception as craved out in S. 27 of the 2009
Act, cannot be limited to only polling of
votes for election rather it will encompass
within all the works relating to election,
which includes revision of electoral roll as
the same has direct relation with the
election - Section 27 Act, 2009 permit the
deployment of teachers for election duty
even before issuance of the notification
relating to election to a Local Body, a St.
Assembly or the Parliament - preparation of
electoral rolls is included in duties relating
to elections - however, the teachers cannot
be deployed during teaching days or
teaching hours but can be deployed on nonteaching days and non-teaching hours.
(Para 22, 24, 29)

Disposed Off. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exist. But the fact remains that the case of
Dr. Kalyana Raman was considered and he
was placed second in the panel of names. It
is not shown that the selection was
arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection
Committee did not act fairly towards Dr.
Kalyana Raman. The fact that he was
placed second in the parcel, itself indicates
that there was proper consideration of his
case and he has been treated fairly. It
should not be lost sight of that the Selection
Committee consisted of experts in the
subject for selection. They were men of
high status and also of unquestionable
impartiality. The Court should be slow to
interfere with their opinion."

23. Finally, in the case of Dr. Ramesh
Kumar Yadav and another vs. University
of Allahabad and Others 2012 (4) ADJ
724 (DB), this court held that central
government had no authority to disagree
with
the
recommendation
of
UGC.
Exemption granted by UGC to the
candidates who were awarded P.hd degrees
prior to the cut of date was in accordance
with UGC guidelines prevailing at that time
and central government had no right to
direct otherwise.

24. After considering the rival
submissions, this court finds that the
petitioners have miserably failed to prove
their case before this court by pointing
out to any violation of any regulation of
UGC wanting an interference by this
court. None of the Regulations have been
challenged when arguments have been
advanced against the express Regulations
of UGC. The petitioner's working as
guest faculty was not relevant as per
Regulation 10(e) and her contractual
appointment was also not in accordance
with Regulation 13 of the U.G.C.
Regulation as clear from the submissions
made on behalf of the learned counsel for
the
University.
From
the
above
consideration it is also clear that in the
report of the expert committee the courts
have very limited discretion to interfere.
Where malafides are proved and violation
of any regulation is proved the court may
interfere but it cannot enter into roving
and fishing inquiry on the basis of
irrelevant considerations.

25. In view of the above, the writ
petition
fails
and
is
accordingly,
dismissed.

26. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 1104
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 26204 of 2021
with
 Writ A No.26228 of 2021
with
Writ A No. 26577 of 2021

Nirbhay Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav "Warsi"

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Manjive Shukla, Addl. C.S.C. for
Respondent Nos. 1,2,4,5 & 6, Mr. Rahul
Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 3, Mr.
O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Kaushlendra
Yadav,
Advocate
for
Respondent No. 7
8 All. Nirbhay Singh & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
1105
Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.
324 - Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Assistant
Teachers of Basic Shiksha Parishad Schools
deployed for revision of electoral roll -
Challenge to the same - S. 27, Prohibition of
deployment of teachers for non educational
purposes - Section 27 of the 2009 Act,
prohibits the deployment of teachers for
non-educational
purpose
-
However
following exceptions have been carved out:
decennial population census, disaster relief
duties, duties relating to elections to the
local authority or the St. Legislatures or
Parliament - 'duties relating to elections ' -
exception as craved out in S. 27 of the 2009
Act, cannot be limited to only polling of
votes for election rather it will encompass
within all the works relating to election,
which includes revision of electoral roll as
the same has direct relation with the
election - Section 27 Act, 2009 permit the
deployment of teachers for election duty
even before issuance of the notification
relating to election to a Local Body, a St.
Assembly or the Parliament - preparation of
electoral rolls is included in duties relating
to elections - however, the teachers cannot
be deployed during teaching days or
teaching hours but can be deployed on nonteaching days and non-teaching hours.
(Para 22, 24, 29)

Disposed Off. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Kanika Banshiwal & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2021 SCC OnLine All 755

2. Sunita Sharma Advocate High Court Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.; 2015 (3) ALJ 519

3. Election Commission of India Vs St. Mary's
School (2008) 2 SCC 390

4. Sudhir Kumar Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
Writ-C No.34551 of 2015 decided on July 9,
2015

5. Uttar Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Public

6. PIL No.36449 of 2016 dt. 08.08.2016

7. Kuldip Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-A
No.8516 of 2021 dt 24.08.2021

8. Ramji Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Service
Single No. 16754 of 2021 dt 05.08.2021

9. U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2018 (11) ADJ 393

10. Satyendra Kumar Sandilya Vs The St. of
Bihar & ors. 2011 (59) BLJR 2269

11. Umakant Ramkrushan Mahure Vs The St. of
Mah. & ors. W.P. No. 6718 of 2019 dt
18.02.2020

13. Mahesh Swami & ors. Vs The St. of Raj. &
ors. CWP No. 17945 of 2021 16.03.2022

14. The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Vs
Mahesh & ors., (2022) 2 SCC 772

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

1. The matter has been placed before
this Bench for considering the following
questions referred by the learned Single
Judge vide order dated November 11, 2021:

"(1) Whether the provisions of
Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 permit
the deployment of teachers to do any kind of
duties relating to elections before the issue of
an election notification relating to a Local
Body, a State Assembly or the Parliament
under appropriate provisions of the law?

(2) Whether before or after the
issue of notifications relating to elections to a
Local Body, a State Assembly or the
Parliament, can teachers be deployed to any
kind of election-related work on teaching
days or during teaching hours?"

2. The matter was referred to larger
Bench for the reason that the learned Single
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judge was of the opinion that the view
expressed by the learned Single Judge in
Kanika Banshiwal and others v. State of
U.P. and others1 runs contrary to the view
expressed by the Division Bench in Sunita
Sharma Advocate High Court v. State of
U.P. and others2.

3. The petitioners in the writ petitions
claim that they are working as Assistant
Teachers in various Basic Shiksha Parishad
Schools in district Barabanki. They have
been directed to work as Booth Level
Officer by the Sub Divisional Officer of the
Tehsils concerned in terms of the direction
issued
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Barabanki, who is the District Electoral
Officer. It was claimed that the petitioners
are engaged in teaching children of the age
group of 6 to 14 years, for whom right to
education
is
fundamental
right
as
guaranteed under Article 21A of the
Constitution3. In terms thereof, the 2009
Act4 was enacted. The protection is sought
under Section 27 of the 2009 Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that Section 27 of the 2009 Act
clearly provides that the teachers cannot be
deployed for non educational purposes.
However,
this
provision
has
three
exceptions,
namely,
deployment
in
decennial population census, disaster relief
duties or duties relating to elections to the
local authority or the State Legislatures or
Parliament. The census is normally held
after a gap of 10 years. A disaster though
can be at any time but it is not a regular
feature. However, the elections for different
bodies at the District, State and Central
level are the repeated exercise. The term
"election" as given in Section 27 of the
2009 Act has to be given restrictive
meaning by holding that it is limited to
election duty which starts after notification
otherwise study of the students in the age
group of 6 to 14 years will suffer. The same
will be in violation of the mandate as
provided
under Article
21A
of
the
Constitution.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for election commission submitted that the
Government of India, Ministry of Human
Resources and Development vide letter
dated September 13, 2010 had issued
specific guidelines in exercise of power
conferred under Section 35(1) of the 2009
Act, which are in terms of the guidelines
issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Election Commission of India v. St.
Mary's School5. In terms thereof, the need
for electoral duty is to be balanced with the
education of the children and as far as
possible, the duties are to be assigned on
holidays or during non teaching hours and
non teaching days. He further submitted
that the facts in Sunita Sharma's case
(supra) are distinguishable, as in the
aforesaid case duties assigned to the
teachers were for verification of card
holding
families
for
inclusion
and
exclusion under the National Food Security
Act, 2013, which was not falling in each of
the exceptions carved out in Section 27 of
the 2009 Act. It was distinguished in
Sudhir Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.
and others6. He further submitted that
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
St. Marys' case (supra) holds the field in
which comprehensive guidelines have been
issued for assigning the election duties to
the teachers. The same are being followed.
As the issue raised is covered by the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
St. Marys' case (supra), the reference
itself is bad. He further submitted that in
some cases, different types of directions
have been issued. It is for the reason that
the election commission was not impleaded
8 All. Nirbhay Singh & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
1107
as party, hence correct view point could not
be placed before the Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State
submitted that as far as teaching to Classes
1 to 5 is concerned, there are total 200
working days and 800 hours in a year. As
far as Classes 6 and 7 are concerned,
teaching days are 226 with 1000 hours. By
deploying the teachers, in the case in hand,
for carrying out duties in connection with
election, Section 27 of the 2009 Act is not
being violated. The words used in Section
27 of the 2009 Act are "relating to
elections" and not simply "election duties".
Revision of electoral roll will certainly be a
duty which is related to the election. As the
election process is quite important in a
democracy as is evident from preamble of
the
Constitution.
Right
to
vote
is
fundamental. Unless the electoral roll is
revised periodically especially before the
election, many may be deprived to exercise
their right to vote. Balance has to be struck.
The mandate of Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in St. Marys' case (supra) is being
followed. The questions referred to by
learned Single Judge has infact been
answered in Sudhir Kumar Sharma's
case (supra). The teaching work of the
students is not being affected as, as far as
possible, deployment is being made either
on holidays or during non teaching hours.
Revision of electoral roll is not such a
frequent exercise, as the teachers remain on
this duty repeatedly. It is fundamental duty
of all the citizens to aid the State for
holding free and fair election. Unless all the
voters are registered, free and fair elections
are not possible. The conduct of the
petitioners shows that while challenging
their deployment for revision of electoral
roll, they are seeking to escape from their
responsibility towards the nation. Election
is an integral part of the democratic
process.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the relevant record.

8. Section 27 of the 2009 Act, which
requires interpretation by this Court, is
extracted below:

"27. Prohibition of deployment
of
teachers
for
non-educational
purposes.- No teacher shall be deployed
for any non-educational purposes other
than the decennial population census,
disaster relief duties or duties relating to
elections to the local authority or the State
Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may
be."

VIEW OF THIS COURT THAT
TEACHERS CAN BE DEPLOYED
FOR
DUTIES
RELATING
TO
ELECTION

9. In Uttar Pradeshiya Prathmik
Shikshak Sangh and others v. State of
U.P. and others7 the issue before the
Division Bench of this Court was with
reference to the duty sought to be assigned
to the teachers to perform duties as Booth
Level
Officers
and
for
preparation,
revision, maintenance and duplication of
the electoral roll/voter list. The Division
Bench disposed of the petition in terms of
the statement of learned counsel for the
respondents that they shall put the teaching
staff on duty on non-teaching days and
within non-teaching hours as observed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in St. Marys'
case (supra).

10. In Kanika Banshiwal's case
(supra), the Single Bench of this Court
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
while considering the earlier judgments of
this Court opined that in terms of Section
27 of the 2009 Act, the teaches can be
deployed for the purposes relating to
election. In the said case, the teachers were
deployed to work as Booth Level Officer
for the purposes of conduct of duties
relating to election.

11. A Division Bench of this Court in
Sudhir
Kumar
Sharma's
(supra),
considered the import of Section 27 of the
2009 Act and opined that the teachers can
be deployed for revision of electoral roll as
the said work is part and parcel of on-going
election process. Direction was issued
keeping in mind the observations of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in St. Marys'
case (supra). Earlier judgment of this
Court in Sunita Sharma's case (supra)
was distinguished, as in that case duty
assigned was different and had no relations
with the elections.

VIEW OF THIS COURT THAT
TEACHERS
CAN
NOT
BE
DEPLOYED FOR
DUTIES
RELATING TO ELECTION

12. In a short order passed in Kuldip
Singh v. State of U.P. and others8, a
Single Bench of this Court while referring
to earlier Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Sunita Sharma's case (supra)
opined that teacher cannot be deployed for
election work. Reliance was wrongly
placed upon Division Bench judgement in
Sunita Sharma's case (supra) which in
fact was distinguishable where duty
sought to be assigned was for verification
of card holding families. There is no
discussion in detail on the issue raised and
arguments
advanced
by
the
learned
counsel for the parties. The said writ
petition was disposed of with the consent
of both the parties stating that the same is
covered by the judgment of this Court in
Sunita Sharma's case (supra).

13. The Single Bench of this Court in
Ramji Mishra v. State of U.P. and
others9 while considering the submission
of the counsel for the petitioners that
revision of voter list does not fall in any of
the categories as carved out in Section 27
of the 2009 Act, vide interim order
directed that they shall not be forced to
perform duties as Booth Level Officer.

14. In Sunita Sharma's case
(supra), the issue under consideration
before this Court was deployment of
teachers for verification of card holding
families on the basis of criteria for
inclusion and exclusion under the National
Food
Security
Act,
2013.
While
considering the import of Section 27 of the
2009 Act, the opinion expressed was as
under:

".....Section
27
specifically
contains a prohibition on the deployment
of teaches for non-educational purposes.
Under Section 27, no teacher shall be
deployed
for
any
non-educational
purposes
other
than
the
decennial
population census, disaster relief duties or
duties relating to elections to the local
authority, or to the State Legislatures or
Parliament, as the case may be. In view of
this statutory prohibition, it is clearly
unlawful and ultra vires on the part of the
State to requisition the services of teachers
for carrying out the verification of eligible
car holding families."

15. In the aforesaid case, the teachers
were not being deployed for any work
relating to election rather for verification
of the eligible card holding families.
8 All. Nirbhay Singh & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
1109

16. In U.P. Pradeshiya Prathmik
Shikshak Sangh and others v. State of
U.P. and others10, the issue under
consideration before the Single Bench of
this Court was deployment of teachers for
verification of Ration Cards. Section 27 of
the 2009 Act was considered and the
opinion was expressed was "they could not
be deployed for such a duty which is not in
conformity with the provisions of Section
27 of the 2009 Act".

VIEW OF OTHER HIGH COURTS
THAT
TEACHERS
CAN
BE
DEPLOYED FOR DUTIES RELATING
TO ELECTION

17. A Division Bench of Patna High
Court in Satyendra Kumar Sandilya v.
The State of Bihar and others11 while
considering the issue as to whether the
teachers
can
be
deployed
for
non
educational purposes such as election and
census duties, while relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
St. Marys' case (supra) opined that there
is no bar for such deployment and the
authorities are required to act in terms of
the provisions of Section 27 of the 2009
Act and keeping in view the directions
given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in St.
Marys' case (supra).

18. A Division Bench of Bombay
High Court in Umakant Ramkrushan
Mahure v. The State of Maharashtra and
others12 also considered the issue with
reference to Section 27 of the 2009 Act as
to whether teachers could be deployed for
work relating to election of the Legislative
Assembly
or
the
Parliament.
While
referring to the instructions issued by the
Election
Commission
of
India
in
conformity with the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in St. Marys' case
(supra), following directions were issued:

"(i) The petitioners, who are
Teachers, are covered by the provisions of
section 27 of Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009, can be
called to perform election duty including
updating of electoral rolls on holidays and
in non-teaching hours.

(ii) If F.I.R. is lodged against any
of the petitioners, for refusal to perform the
duty during school hours, the same shall
not be prosecuted. However, if the
petitioners refuse to work in accordance
with
the
instructions
of
Elections
Commission of India, it shall be open for
the respondents to continue with such
actions."

19. Similar view was expressed by
Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court in
Mahesh Swami and others v. The State
of Rajasthan and others13.

DISCUSSIONS

20. To answer the questions, we need
to consider the import of Section 27 of the
2009 Act, which prohibits the deployment
of teachers for non-educational purpose.
However following exceptions have been
carved out:
- decennial population census

- disaster relief duties
- duties relating to elections to the local
authority or the State Legislatures or
Parliament

21. The words used in Section 27 of
the 2009 Act are ''duties relating to
elections'. Article 324 of the Constitution of
India deals with the superintendence,
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direction and control of the preparation of
the electoral rolls for and the conduct of, all
elections
to
Parliament
and
to
the
Legislature of every State and of elections
to the offices of President and Vice
President held under this Constitution
treating them to be vested in a commission
referred to in this Constitution as the
Election Commission.

22. Use of word ''and', between
control of the preparation of electoral rolls
for and the conduct of all elections in
Article 324(1) means that preparation of
electoral rolls is a prelude to conduct of
elections. Thus, when given comprehensive
and inclusive meaning preparation of
electoral rolls is included in duties relating
to elections.

23. As to what will include in the
''duties relating to election' need to be
examined. The term ''relating to' was
examined in detail by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court
in
The
Executive
Engineer,
Gosikhurd v. Mahesh and others14,
wherein
while
referring
to
various
judgments on the issue, it was opined that
the expression ''relating to' has to be given
expansive and wider meaning. Relevant
para 16 thereof is extracted as under :

"16. We begin by examining the
phrasing of clause (a) to Section 24 (1) of
the 2013 Act. We would prefer to read the
words "all the provisions relating to
determination of compensation" in Section
24(1)(a) as including the period of
limitation specified in Section 25 of the
2013 Act. To elaborate, the word `all' and
the expression "relating to" used in Section
25 are required to be given a wide meaning
to ensnare the legislative intent. The
expressions "relating to" or "in relation to"
are words of comprehensiveness which
may have a direct as well as indirect
significance depending on the context.
Similarly, interpreting Section 129C of the
Customs Act, 1962, this Court while giving
the phrase `in relation to' a narrower
meaning
of
direct
and
proximate
relationship to the rate of duty and to the
value of goods for purpose of assessment,
did observe that ordinarily the phrase `in
relation to' is of a wider import. Several
cases assigning a wider import to the
expression `relating to', in view of the
contextual background, find reference in
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v.
Amit Gupta and Others, 2021 SCC
Online SC 194. In Renusagar Power Co.
Ltd. v. General Electric Company and
Another, (1984) 4 SCC 679, this Court
held that the term `in relation to', when
used in the context of arbitration clause, is
of widest amplitude and content. In
Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Others v.
Eknath Vithal Ogale, (1995) 2 SCC 665
the expression `relating to' in the context of
Small Causes Court Act, 1887 has been
held to be comprehensive in nature that
would take in its sweep all types of suits
and proceedings which are concerned with
recovery of possession. Broad and wider
interpretation was again preferred in M/s.
Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 299
observing that the expression "in relation
to" is a very broad expression which
presupposes another subject matter. In M/s.
Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in the
context of Section 3 of Swadeshi Cotton
Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986, the
expression "relating to" was held to mean
`bring into association or connection with'.
The words are comprehensive and might
have both direct as well as indirect
significance. The decision in Gujarat Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited (supra) refers to
8 All. Nirbhay Singh & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors.
1111
Corpus Juris Secundum, wherein the
expression "relating to" has been held to be
equivalent to or synonymous with as to
"concerning with" and "pertaining to". It
has been observed that the expression
"pertaining
to"
is
an
expression
of
expansion and not of contraction. The
expression "relating to" when used in
legislation normally refers to "stand in
some relation, to have bearing or concern,
to pertain, to refer, to bring into association
with or connection with". Therefore, the
expression `relating to' when used in
legislation has to be construed to give
effect to the legislative intent when
required and necessary by giving an
expansive and wider meaning. Given this
trend in interpretation, the words "all the
provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation" must not
be imputed a restricted understanding of
the word `relating' only to the substantial
provisions on calculation of compensation,
that is, Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act.
Rather, the expression should be given an
expansive meaning so as to include the
provision
on
limitation
period
for
calculation of compensation, that is,
Section 25 of the 2013 Act." (emphasis
supplied)

24. If the aforesaid opinion on the
term ''relating to' is considered, the
exception as craved out in Section 27 of the
2009 Act, which allows deployment of
teachers for election duty, cannot be limited
to only polling of votes for election rather it
will encompass within all the works
relating to election, which includes revision
of electoral roll as the same has direct
relation with the election.

25. Prior to the enactment of the 2009
Act, the issue with reference to assignment
of election duty to teachers was considered
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in St.
Marys' case (supra). The duty sought to
be assigned in the aforesaid case was for
non-educational purposes. The matter was
examined in detail and it was opined that
all teaching staff can be put on the duties of
roll revisions and election works on
holidays and non-teaching days. Para 33
thereof reads as under:

"33. We would, however, notice
that the Election Commission before us
also categorically stated that as far as
possible teachers would be put on electoral
roll revision works on holidays, nonteaching days and non-teaching hours;
whereas non-teaching staff be put on duty
any time. We, therefore, direct that all
teaching staff shall be put on the duties of
roll revisions and election works on
holidays and non-teaching days. Teachers
should not ordinarily be put on duty on
teaching days and within teaching hours.
Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on
such duties on any day or at any time, if
permissible in law."

26. In compliance of the aforesaid
judgment, even the Election Commission
of India has issued guidelines in detail. The
same are reproduced as under:

1. Wherever teaching staff is put
on duties of roll revision, the DEOs/EROs
shall prescribe holidays and non-teaching
days and not teaching hours as duly period
for this work. Such appointees may be
asked to avoid teaching days and teaching
hours for undertaking the roll revision
work. During roll revision, wherever the
teachers are appointed as designated
officers to make various Forms (Form-6, 7
etc) available to the voters and to receive
the Forms from the voters, the DEOs/EROs
shall prescribe a specific time during non-
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
teaching hours for the purpose of providing
and receiving such Forms. Preferably,
minimum of one hour time immediately
after the closure of teaching hours can be
earmarked for this purpose. Depending on
the
prevailing
teaching
hours,
the
DEOs/ERO shall issue specific instruction
and bring the same to the knowledge of all
political parties and to the public well in
advance.

2. Wherever special campaign
dates are prescribed during the revision
period, such complaint shall invariably be
held on holidays only.

3. When an intensive revision is
to be ordered, the schedule for revision
shall be devised keeping the availability of
holidays in mind. If the door-to-door
verification has to be done on teaching
days, such verification may be asked to be
done after teaching hours and on holidays.

4. Whenever the teachers are used
as Booth Level Officer for the purpose of
door-to-door verification, for finding out
cases of photo mismatches in the photo roll
etc, the same exercise shall be done during
non-teaching hours and on holidays.

5. Whenever needed, the period
for enumeration work may be extended for
this purpose so that the enumeration work
is carried out without hampering the
teaching hours."

27. It was pleaded that the aforesaid
guidelines are being followed.

28. In our view, the judgement of
Single Bench of this Court in Kuldip
Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A
No.8516 of 2021 decided on August 24,
2021 does not lay down the correct law and
must, as we do, be overruled.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

29. Question No.1 is answered in
positive holding that the teachers can be
deployed for election duty even before
issuance of the notification relating to
election to a Local Body, a State Assembly
or the Parliament which includes work for
revision of electoral roll.

Question No.2 is answered in
negative holding that the teachers cannot be
deployed during teaching days or teaching
hours but can be on non-teaching days and
non-teaching hours.

30. While answering the questions
referred to by the larger Bench, let the
present writ petition be now placed before
the Single Bench as per roster on August
29, 2022.
----------