Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ten Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:41784]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18355/2025
Ten Singh S/o Shri Diwan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Village Bheru Chhani, 4 JSL, PO Channibari, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector
Cum District Election Officer Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
2. The Electoral Registration Officer (SDM), Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala and
Ms. Lata Ladrecha for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
18/09/2025
1. The present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the
admission stage upon hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State without further issuance of any notice.
2. Since this Court is not inclined to adjudicate positively on
any findings of the respondent authorities, liberty is, however,
given to the petitioner to file a representation.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was not an elector in the area where the petitioner was posted as
Booth Level Officer (BLO). The guidelines issued by the Election
Commission categorizes three types of persons who can be posted
as Booth Level Officers (BLO). These three categories are
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 05:39:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41784] (2 of 3) [CW-18355/2025]
indicated as Clause 1.1, Clause 1.2 and Clause 1.3. If a person is
not an elector and no employees who are categorized under
Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2 are available then he can be posted by
invoking powers under Clause 1.3. Challenging the same, the
petitioner earlier filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by
granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and such
representation was directed to be considered in light of Clause 1.1
only.
4. The respondent authorities, vide the impugned order, after
considering the representation, have rejected the claim of the
petitioner, holding that though the petitioner referred to the
availability of employees at the booth level as listed under Clause
1.2, his case was not considered for the reason that the direction
was only with reference to the availability of employees
categorized under Clause 1.1. However, his submission is that
both Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2 were taken into consideration in
the body of the judgment at paragraph 24. Therefore, the
authorities should have considered the availability of employees
under Clause 1.2 as well.
5. No doubt, in the operative portion of the order which
directed the respondent to consider the representation, the
direction was only with reference to the availability of employees
listed under Clause 1.1. However, the guidelines show that a
person who is not an elector can be appointed as Booth Level
Officer and such a person, who is not an elector in the booth for
which he was appointed, can be appointed by invoking powers
under Clause 1.3 and Clause 1.4, subject to the non-availability of
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 05:39:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41784] (3 of 3) [CW-18355/2025]
employees categorized under Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition.
6. In view of the above facts, the present writ petition is
disposed of with the direction that if any fresh representation is
filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today,
identifying any regular State/local Government employee who is
an elector of the concerned area, the respondent authorities shall
be under an obligation to strictly comply with Clause 1.1 to Clause
1.2 of the instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 (as modified
vide communication dated 05.06.2025) of the ECI.
7. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
182s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 05:39:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
