Kolkata: The WBCS Executive Officers’ Association on Monday strongly denied that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs were responsible for certain names being marked “under adjudication” in the electoral roll, attributing the issue instead to micro observers and roll observers engaged by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The clarification came a day after the state Chief Electoral Officer’s (CEO) office stated that certain names were marked “under adjudication” because the concerned EROs/AEROs had not decided on them after hearings. In a post on its X handle on Sunday evening, the CEO’s office said: “It is clarified that all cases under consideration of Hon’ble judicial officers have been marked as ‘under adjudication’ in the Electoral Roll published on February 28.
The judicial officers are working under the guidance of the Calcutta High Court as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It will be pertinent to mention that certain names have been marked as ‘under adjudication’ since the concerned ERO/AEROs did not decide them after hearing. As a result, those names being pending were sent for adjudication by judicial officers as per order of the Hon’ble apex court.” Describing the poll body’s social media post as “completely untrue”, the WBCS Executive Officers’ Association expressed grave concern and issued a rebuttal on social media. The Association asserted that EROs and AEROs had been diligently conducting hearings, uploading documents and issuing reasoned orders.
It further claimed that micro observers and roll observers engaged by the ECI had disagreed with and returned many cases already disposed of by EROs/AEROs, without offering observations or comments. This, the Association said, resulted in a large number of names being marked “under adjudication”.
Calling the CEO’s office statement demeaning, the Association said assigning blame to officers working “day and night” in the electoral process adversely affects morale.
Meanwhile, the state CEO office on Monday responded to WBCSEOA claims, clarifying that only some cases pending with EROs/AEROs were referred for adjudication and never attributed to indecision. It warned that spreading hearsay or discrediting constitutional bodies can have serious consequences and urged government servants to follow conduct rules.