Calcutta High Court Addresses Election Duty of Assistant Professors

The Calcutta High Court has recently addressed the contentious issue of assigning election duties to assistant professors in West Bengal. The court's ruling emphasized the Election Commission's authority to appoint various officials, including judges, for electoral responsibilities. This case arose when assistant professors challenged their designation as presiding officers, citing previous orders that restricted such assignments without proper justification. Justice Krishna Rao's remarks highlighted the legal framework governing these appointments, and he expressed readiness to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for further clarification. The next hearing is set for Friday, promising to shed more light on this significant electoral issue.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 17, 2026, 15:35 IST

High Court's Stance on Election Duties

During election periods, government officials and employees are assigned duties related to the electoral process. The Election Commission holds the authority to appoint teachers, police officers, and other government personnel to various roles. A case concerning the assignment of duties to certain assistant professors reached the High Court, which stated that not only professors but judges could also be assigned election duties by the Commission. Justice Krishna Rao of the High Court expressed his willingness to participate in electoral duties and criticized the Election Commission for failing to present any regulations regarding the assignment of assistant professors.

This case revolves around the appointment of assistant professors as presiding officers for the West Bengal elections. These professors challenged the Commission's decision, arguing that in a previous order, the Commission stated that senior officials in Group A, such as university and college teaching staff, could not be assigned election duties unless the district election officer provided a written justification.

Reference to Section 26

While hearing the case, Justice Krishna Rao remarked, 'According to Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, the district election officer can appoint a presiding officer for each polling booth. However, they cannot appoint someone who is working for a candidate. We can also go to polling booths. It is no joke that you keep changing your notifications every time.'

Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya, representing the group of assistant professors, stated that their primary demand was not to be appointed as presiding officers. He emphasized, 'There is a pool of officials available; appoint them. Do not demean teachers in this manner.'

The Election Commission's lawyer commented on the matter, stating, 'The deadline for withdrawing names was March 19. Intervening at this stage could disrupt the entire election process.' In response, Justice Krishna Rao said, 'Even if this occurred a day before the election, the law would still take its course. I am referring this matter to the Supreme Court. The Election Commission is misusing the Supreme Court's orders.' The next hearing on this case is scheduled for Friday.