Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dalchand Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:45967) on 17 October, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:45967]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                             JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20301/2025
Dalchand Kumawat S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Dholavato Ki Gali Bhana, Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
                                                    ----Petitioner
                             Versus
1.    State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
      Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.    District   Education    Officer, Secondary       Education,
      Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
3.    Electoral Registration Officer (S.D.M), Rajsamand
      (Rajasthan)
                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
                                    Mr. Ravindra Singh
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Deepak Suthar &
                                    Ms. Lata Ladrecha on behalf of
                                    Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG.


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

17/10/2025

1. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order

dated 22.07.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

12975/2025 (Ten Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein,

the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

"1. The present writ petitions have been filed aggrieved of the orders impugned whereby the petitioners have been appointed as Booth Level Officers (BLO).

2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners 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

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (2 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

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 petitioners 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 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. Counsels in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.12741/2025 &13510/2025 raised two additional grounds:

i. There definitely were certain regular employees available who were enrolled in the electoral roll of the concerned area. Despite there being such regular employees available, the petitioners have been appointed as BLOs which is in contravention to the guidelines of ECI.

ii. The petitioner is a single teacher in the concerned school and in terms of Clause 1.5(d) of instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 of ECI, no teacher

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (3 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

of a single teacher school could have been deployed as a BLO.

6. 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 Clause1.2 of the guidelines, was even required.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 Petition No.4962/2024; Tulsi Ram Munsiya vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided 09.12.2024).

10. Counsels, with the above submissions, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions.

11. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

12. 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

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (4 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

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 Clause1.2 but has appointed the present petitioners as BLOs while adhering to Clause 1.3 of the modified guidelines of ECI.

13. For ready reference, reproduction of Clause 1 of instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 and communication dated05.06.2025 would be apt.14.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.

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:-

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (5 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

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 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."

15. The above Clause was modified vide communication dated05.06.2025 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

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (6 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

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.

1.2 In the absence of regular state/local government employees, ERO may appoint BLO amongst Anganwadi workers, Contract Teachers, or central government employees. However, in such cases, CEO shall obtain anon-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 theCommission 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."

16. 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.

17. If no employee falling in the above category is available, the BLOs can be appointed amongst the Anganwadi workers, Contract Teachers or Central

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (7 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

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.

18. 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 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. The orders impugned on that count therefore, do not deserve any interference.

24. Coming on to the ground that regular State/local Government employees and Aanganwadi workers who are the electors of the concerned electoral area are available

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:45967] (8 of 8) [CW-20301/2025]

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 betaken care of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners on that aspect.

25. So far as the ground raised in two petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No12741/2025 & 13510/2025 to the extent that the petitioners are single teachers in the concerned schools is concerned, the interference in such cases also deserves to be made.

26. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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.

27. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

2. In light of the above, the present writ petition is also

disposed of in the same terms as in Ten Singh (supra).

3. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 181-BhumikaP/-

(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:23:05 PM)