The Election Commission of India has written again to the West Bengal government seeking clarification on the list of officers sent for deployment in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, this time specifically asking for details of Group-B micro-observers.
Sources said the office of the state’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has sought an explanation after finding that nearly 30 per cent of the Group-C employees included in the list submitted by the state were described as Group-B officials on the basis of enhanced pay, in line with a Supreme Court order.
The commission has questioned whether a change in pay scale can automatically lead to a change in rank.
The commission has also pointed out that 440 officers named in the list are already working as Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs).
It has sought clarification on how their names were included again despite their current assignments.
According to commission sources, the state submitted details of about 6,000 officials out of a total list of 8,505, comprising both Group-B and Group-C employees.
As per the court’s directions, these 8,505 officials are to assist Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
District Magistrates-cum-District Election Officers (DEOs) were asked to report where these officials have joined duty.
However, the commission has not clearly stated whether all those who have reported will be allowed to start work.
The issue traces back to the hearing of the SIR case in the Supreme Court of India on 4 February, where Mamata Banerjee argued the matter.
During the hearing, the commission’s counsel told the court that the state had failed to provide an adequate number of Group-B officers for SIR work, forcing the ECI to deploy officials from outside the state.
Following this, the court directed the West Bengal government to submit a list specifying how many Group-B officers it could provide by 9 February.
In compliance, the state handed over a list of 8,505 officials to the ECI on 7 February and informed the apex court accordingly.
The Supreme Court made it clear that all these officials must be of Group-B rank, would not have decision-making powers, and would only assist EROs along with micro-observers.
The commission, however, maintained in court that not all officers in the list were Group-B, and that it included Group-C staff and officials who had earlier worked as AEROs.
On 10 February, the state government issued a notification alleging that certain vested interests were deliberately distorting the database of Group-B officers submitted to the commission, claiming it was prepared in line with the Supreme Court’s observations of 9 February.
Following these developments, the Election Commission has now formally written to the state again, seeking detailed clarification specifically on the Group-B micro-observers’ list.