Election staff requisition power is exhaustive; statutory instructions cannot authorise use of State Bank of India employees for polling duty.

The HC held that the constitutional and statutory scheme for requisitioning election staff is exhaustive: Article 324(6) permits requisition only from Central or State services made available by the President or Governor, and Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 extends only to local authority staff. State Bank of India, being a statutory corporation and not a local authority, could not be brought within that category, and Section 26 could not be treated as an independent source of power. The Court also held that Election Commission instructions or administrative practice could not enlarge the statutory classes or override the governing scheme. The appointment letters were quashed and requisition of SBI employees for election duty was restrained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Election Officer could requisition and appoint employees of the State Bank of India as Presiding Officers or Polling Officers under the constitutional and statutory scheme governing elections; (ii) Whether the Election Commission's instructions could enlarge the statutory power so as to cover employees of statutory corporations or public sector undertakings.

Issue (i): Whether the District Election Officer could requisition and appoint employees of the State Bank of India as Presiding Officers or Polling Officers under the constitutional and statutory scheme governing elections.

Analysis: Article 324(6) permits requisition only of staff made available by the President or Governor from the Central or State services, while Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 authorises requisition of staff of a local authority only on request by the competent electoral authority. The expression "local authority" bears its settled legal meaning under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and cannot be expanded to include the State Bank of India, which is a statutory corporation and not a local authority. Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be read as an independent source enabling requisition of any person outside the constitutional and statutory classes, since that would render Article 324(6) and Section 159 redundant and create an arbitrary and unguided power.

Conclusion: The District Election Officer had no authority to requisition or appoint State Bank of India employees for election duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the Election Commission's instructions could enlarge the statutory power so as to cover employees of statutory corporations or public sector undertakings.

Analysis: The Election Commission may issue supplemental directions only where the field is not already occupied by the Constitution or parliamentary legislation. Here, the requisition of services for election work is already fully covered by Article 324(6), Article 327, Section 159 and Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Instructions in the Handbook or consolidated directions could not override or supplement that scheme so as to authorise requisition of employees of statutory corporations or public sector undertakings. A long-standing administrative practice also cannot prevail over the statute.

Conclusion: The Election Commission's instructions could not validly authorise requisition of State Bank of India employees.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appointment letters were quashed, and the respondents were restrained from requisitioning State Bank of India employees for election work under the cited provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Constitution and the governing election statute specify the classes of personnel whose services may be requisitioned, that scheme is exhaustive and cannot be extended by executive instructions or by treating a statutory corporation as a local authority.

---