The Supreme Court on Saturday refused to pass any orders on the TMC’s petition against appointment of central employees as supervisors during counting of votes scheduled on May 4 after the Election Commission assured that its circular on the issue would be followed in letter and spirit.“No further orders are necessary except to reiterate the statement of DS Naidu (senior counsel representing the EC) that the circular dated April 13, 2026, will be implemented in letter and spirit,” a Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.The top court made it clear that the Election Commission could choose counting personnel and its April 13 circular – which provided for a mix of central and state government employees – could not be said to be incorrect.Polling for the 294-member West Bengal Assembly was held in two phases on April 23 and April 29 and the counting of votes is scheduled to take place on May 4.In a special sitting on Saturday, the Bench took up the TMC challenging the against the Calcutta High Court’s April 30 order dismissing its petition against the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision to deploy central government employees as counting supervisors.On behalf of the TMC, senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the legality of the EC’s decision, saying the exclusion of state government employees was illegal. He said the EC kept it secret and announced the April 13 decision only on April 29.“The CEO’s (Chief Electoral Officer’s) communication says that there are apprehensions expressed from various quarters regarding possible irregularities in counting. That is pointing a finger at the state government… There must be some data. Where is the apprehension from each booth? They (EC) have not disclosed this. And why not tell us that they’re going to have a central government nominee?” Sibal wondered.However, the Bench said it was the poll panel’s prerogative to choose from either the central or state government employees. “The option is open that the counting supervisor and counting assistant may be of the Centre or may be of the state government. So, when that option is open we can’t hold that the notification is contrary to regulations. They can even say that both of them can be from the Centre. Even if they had said that we could not have faulted them because regulations say that either central or state government officers can be appointed,” Justice Bagchi said.On behalf of the EC, Naidu explained the counting procedure and said counting agents of candidates belonging to various parties were supposed to be there during the counting and that the poll panel was following well-established procedures.“The returning officer has an overarching power who is the state government employee… He selects the officers. These are misplaced apprehensions,” Naidu submitted. He said the EC would comply with the circular governing appointment of counting supervisors.Finally, after recording Naidu’s submission that the EC’s circular on the issue would be followed in letter and spirit, the top court said no further orders were needed in the matter.The TMC had challenged a communication issued by the West Bengal Additional Chief Electoral Officer which said at least one among the counting supervisor and counting assistant at each counting table shall be a Central Government or Central PSU employee. It contended that the Additional Chief Electoral Officer lacked jurisdiction and that such a direction could be issued only by the poll panel.However, the high court turned down its plea. “This Court does not find any illegality for appointing counting supervisor and counting assistant from the Central Government/Central PSU employee instead of State Government employee,” the high court said, rejecting the TMC’s petition.”If the petitioner proves that the Central Government/Central PSU employees appointed as counting supervisors and counting assistants, helped the opponent of the petitioner by manipulating votes while counting the same, the petitioner has the liberty to take all the points in the election petition,” the high court said.Pointing out that the EC’s handbook permitted appointment of counting staff from either Central or State Government services; the high court held that it’s for the authorities to decide the source of such appointments.The party also raised the issue of possible bias affecting the level playing field as the Central Government was controlled by a political party and the central employees could be susceptible to influence.However, the high court rejected the TMC’s petition, saying mere apprehension of bias cannot justify interference in the electoral process.