Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pushpa Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:34080) on 1 August, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:34080]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14507/2025

Pushpa Kumari D/o Shri Yadubeer Singh Samaria, Aged About 35
Years,    R/o    Lalpur,     Ujoli,    Tehsil     Kotkasim,          District    Alwar,
Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of     Education,       Government           Of      Rajasthan,        Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The    Director,    Secondary         Education,          Bikaner,     District
         Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3.       The Chief Election Officer, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur Rajasthan.
4.       The     District    Collector,        Jodhpur,           District    Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
5.       The Election Registration Officer, Assembly Constituency
         (129) Luni And Sub Divisional Magistrate, Luni, District
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6.       The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
         Education, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :   Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s)            :   Mr. Deepak Suthar, AGC for
                                 Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG
                                 Mr. Ravindra Jala



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

01/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the

order impugned whereby the petitioner has been appointed as

Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (2 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per

instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 of the Election

Commission of India (ECI), a Booth Level Officer should be an

elector of the polling station where he/she is deputed as BLO.

Instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 were however modified

vide communication dated 05.06.2025 and as per the said

modification, it is only when a regular State/local Government

employee registered as an elector in the concerned electoral area

is not available, that an employee working in the area covered by

that part of electoral roll, can be appointed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon clause 1.2 of

instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 (as modified vide

communication dated 05.06.2025) submitted that in absence of

regular State/local Government employee, other Aaganwadi

Workers, Contractual Teachers or Central Government employees

could have been appointed as BLOs. It is only in extreme cases

where neither the regular State/local Government employees nor

the other employees as above mentioned are available that the

employees working in the area covered by that part of electoral

roll can be appointed and that too, only after obtaining a 'Non-

availability Certificate' signed by Electoral Registration Officer

(ERO) and counter-signed by District Election Officer (DEO).

4. The case of the petitioners is that no 'Non-availability

Certificate' was procured by the respondent authorities to ensure

that no regular State/local Government employees who were

enrolled as electors in the electoral roll of the concerned area, are

available. In absence of any such 'Non-availability Certificate', the

respondent-Department could not have adhered to Clause 1.3 of

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (3 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

the guidelines without first ascertaining the non-availability of

employees as prescribed in Clause 1.1 & Clause 1.2 of the

modified guidelines of ECI.

5. Per contra counsels for the respondent-Department

submitted that the necessity to obtain the 'Non-availability

Certificate' is only in the case where the Department was to

proceed in terms of Clause 1.2 of the guidelines. Herein, the

Department proceeded in terms of Clause 1.3 of the guidelines

and hence, no 'Non-availability Certificate' as prescribed in Clause

1.2 of the guidelines, was even required.

6. Counsels submit that Clause 1.3 of the modified guidelines

specifically prescribes that in case of non-availability of the

employees in terms of Clause 1.1 & Clause 1.2, BLOs could be

appointed amongst such employees who were working in the area

covered by that part of electoral roll. The only requisite as per

Clause 1.3 is that a prior approval of CEO ought to be taken. The

same has definitely been taken by the State Department and

hence, the orders impugned are totally in consonance with the

directions as issued by the ECI.

7. Counsels further submit that so far as non-availability of the

employees who were the electors of the concerned area is

concerned, the same was very well ensured from all the respective

schools/institutions prior to the issuance of orders of appointment

of the BLOs.

8. In support of their submissions, counsels relied upon the

Co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.17945/2021; Mahesh Swami vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Anr. (decided on 16.03.2022) and S.B. Civil Writ

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (4 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

Petition No.4962/2024; Tulsi Ram Munsiya vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (decided 09.12.2024).

9. Counsels, with the above submissions, prayed for dismissal

of the present writ petitions.

10. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

11. So far as the necessity of obtaining the 'Non-availability

Certificate' in terms of Clause 1.2 of the modified guidelines of ECI

is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that the same

would apply only when the BLOs are to be appointed amongst

Anganwadi workers, Contract Teachers or Central Government

employees. Only if such category of employees were to be

appointed as BLO, the CEO was under a mandate to obtain a 'Non-

availability Certificate' as prescribed under Clause 1.2. But

admittedly, the Department has not proceeded in terms of Clause

1.2 but has appointed the present petitioners as BLOs while

adhering to Clause 1.3 of the modified guidelines of ECI.

12. For ready reference, reproduction of Clause 1 of instructions/

guidelines dated 04.10.2022 and communication dated

05.06.2025 would be apt.

13. Clause 1 of Instructions/guidelines of Election Commission of

India dated 04.10.2022 provides as under:

"1. Appointment of Booth Level Officers

1.1 Booth Level Officers are to be appointed by the Electoral Registration Officer under Section 13B (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 after obtaining approval of the District Election Officer. They shall deem to be on deputation of the Election Commission of India under section 13CC of the RP. Act, 1950.

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (5 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

1.2 Booth Level Officer can be appointed from the following suggested list of categories Government/Semi Government employees:-

(i) Teachers

(ii) Anganwadi workers,

(iii) Patwari/Amin/Lekhpal,

(iv) Panchayat Secretary,

(v) Village Level Workers,

(vi) Electricity Bill Readers,

(vii) Postman,

(viii) Auxiliary Nurses & Mid-wives,

(ix) Health workers,

(x) Mid-day Meal workers,

(xi) Contract teachers,

(xii) Corporation Tax Collectors, and

(xiii) Clerical Staff in Urban area (UDC/LDC etc.)

1.3 Besides the above list, the following official/individuals can also be appointed/drafted as BLO:-

a. Central Government employees can be drafted only when prescribed/suggested 13 prescribed options have been exhausted.

b. Group 'B' officers can be drafted if prescribed/suggested 13 prescribed options have been exhausted.

c. Willing Retired government servant only where serving government servants are not available within the polling area. However, in rural area, the District Election Officer shall give a non-availability certificate (Annexure-I) in such cases.

d. Any specific category as and when required on case to case basis by CEO of concerned State, after prior approval of the Commission.

1.4 To the extent possible, a Booth Level Officer should be an elector in the polling station where she he is deputed uted-as-Booth Level Officer. However, for the

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (6 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

urban area ACs, if it is found more feasible by the CEO, work area may be aligned with their work place of original department/organization.

1.5 Following points should also be ensured before deployment of BLOs:-

a......

b......

c......

d. Teachers shall be drafted minimally as Booth Level Officers. However, where necessary, they should be drafted for Booth Level Officer work during holidays and during non-teaching hours and non-teaching days so as to avoid any loss of academic work. It must be ensured that no teacher of a single teacher school is deployed for this purpose."

14. The above Clause was modified vide communication dated

05.06.2025 which reads as under:

"I am directed to refer to the Commission's Guidelines No. 23/BLO/2022-ERS dated 4th October 2022, issued with regards to the appointment of Booth Level Officers. In accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Commission during the Chief Electoral Officer's Conference held on 23rd May 2025 in New Delhi, it is hereby stated that the instructions contained in paragraph 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of the above-mentioned guidelines and in paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 & 5.2. of Manual on Electoral Rolls-2023, stand modified as follows:

1.1 ERO to appoint a BLO for each part of an electoral roll, under Section 138 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, amongst any Group C and above regular serving employees of state/local government enrolled as elector in that part.

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (7 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

1.2 In the absence of regular state/local government employees, ERO may appoint BLO amongst Anganwadi warkers, Contract Teachers, or central government employees. However, in such cases, CEO shall obtain a non-availability certificate (Annexure-1) signed by ERO and countersigned by DEO.

1.3 In the absence of any employee of categories mentioned above enrolled as an elector in that part of electoral roll, ERO, with the prior approval of CEO, may appoint BLO amongst such categories of employee working in the area covered by that part of electoral roll.

1.4 In any other case, prior approval from the Commission shall be mandatory.

2. All Chief Electoral Officers are requested for the strict compliance of the above said guidelines of the Commission and to send an ATR by 20th June, 2025 positively."

15. What can be interpreted and concluded from the above

Clauses is that the first priority for appointment of Booth Level

Officer is to be given to those regular State/local Government

employees who are the electors of the concerned area where they

are to be deployed as BLOs.

16. If no employee falling in the above category is available, the

BLOs can be appointed amongst the Anganwadi workers, Contract

Teachers or Central Government employees. But then, they also

ought to be the elector of the concerned electoral area. However,

if such employees are to be deployed, a 'Non-availability

Certificate' was to be procured by the CEO.

17. In case of non-availability of the employees of both the

above categories i.e. the regular or the contractual employees who

are the electors of the concerned electoral area, adherence to

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (8 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

Clause 1.3 of the guidelines could be made. Clause 1.3 of the

modified guidelines of ECI specifically provides for appointment of

BLOs from all such categories of employees who are working in

the areas covered by that part of electoral roll. The only essential

requirement in terms of Clause 1.3 of the guidelines is that it

ought to have a prior approval of CEO.

18. Coming on to the present matters, as has been submitted in

the reply to the writ petitions, the non-availability of both the

categories of employees as prescribed in Clause 1.1 & 1.2 of the

guidelines was ensured by the respondents before adhering to

Clause 1.3 of the modified guideline.

19. So far as prior approval of CEO in terms of Clause 1.3 is

concerned, there is no dispute on the same as such approval has

been obtained and the relevant documents have even been

annexed along with the reply.

20. In view of the above, the ground as raised on behalf of the

petitioners to the effect that in no case, the employees working in

the concerned area could be deployed as BLOs without first

obtaining the 'Non-availability Certificate' qua regular State/local

Government employees or the other contractual and Aanganwadi

workers, is not tenable.

21. Evidently, the respondents have adhered to Clause 1.3 of the

guidelines and as observed above, the only requirement for the

said purpose is the approval of CEO, which has been taken.

22. The orders impugned on that count therefore, do not deserve

any interference.

23. Coming on to the ground that regular State/local

Government employees and Aanganwadi workers who are the

[2025:RJ-JD:34080] (9 of 9) [CW-14507/2025]

electors of the concerned electoral area are available and despite

such candidates being available, the petitioners have erroneously

been deployed without adhering to Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the

guidelines. This Court is of the opinion that the said aspect can be

taken care of by directing the respondent authorities to consider

the representation of the petitioners on that aspect.

24. In view of the above facts, the present writ petitions are

disposed of with the following directions :

(i) If any representation is filed by the petitioner/s within a

period of twenty days from now, identifying any regular

State/local Government employee who is the elector of the

concerned area, the respondent authorities shall be under an

obligation to strictly comply with Clause 1.1 of the

instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 (as modified vide

communication dated 05.06.2025) of the ECI.

(ii) If a representation is filed by any of the petitioner/s within a

period of twenty days to the effect that he/she is a single teacher

in the concerned school, the respondent authorities shall be under

an obligation to verify the said fact and if it is found true, such

petitioner shall be relieved from the duties of BLO with immediate

effect.

25. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 64-Samvedana/-