Varinder Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 5023 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5023 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 April, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Varinder Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 April, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:15144]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7430/2026

Varinder Singh S/o Shri Baldev Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Chak 68/3 Gb, Post 70 Gb, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral
         Office, State Election Commission, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The       District       Election     Officer       (Collector),    District
         Rajsamand (Raj.).
3.       The Electoral Registration Officer Cum Sub Division
         Magistrate (Sdm), Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).
4.       The Director, Elementary Education Bikaner, Bikaner
         (Raj.).
5.       The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
         District Rajsamand (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. O.P. Sangwa



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

02/04/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

the following prayers:-

"(i) The act and action of the respondents is required to be declared bad in the eyes of law, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to concept of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 under Section 27 not deployment of teachers for non-educational purpose and also violative Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

(ii) The impugned order dated 24.03.2026 (Ann.2) passed by the respondent no.3 Electoral Registration Officer cum Sub Division Magistrate (SDM), Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.), may kindly be quashed and set aside."

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:09:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15144] (2 of 4) [CW-7430/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the

judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP

No.352/2026 titled as Rajesh Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Anr, decided on 15.01.2026.

3. For ready reference, the order dated 15.01.2026 passed in

the case of Rajesh Kumar Meena (supra) is reproduced

hereunder:-

"1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 01.02.2026 (Annex.4) whereby the petitioner has been appointed as 'Booth Level Officer' (BLO) at Madya Bagh, Senior Secondary School, Indawar, Merta City, District Nagaur, whereas the petitioner is not an elector/voter in that constituency. He further submits that as per the instructions of the Election Commission of India issued vide order dated 09.06.2025, a 'Booth Level Officer' (BLO) should be a voter in the polling station where, he is deputed as 'Block Level Officer' (BLO). 2. In this regard, certain guidelines have been issued by the Election Commission of India which reads as follows:

"1.1 ERO to appoint a BLO for each part of an electoral roll, under Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People At, 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 a non-availability certificate (Annexure-I) singed 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."

3. A reading of the above clause makes out that the employees who are falling under Group-C category are required to be appointed as Booth Level Officer in the booth in which such employee is registered as an elector. If the officers of Group - C are not available in the booth then they have to resort to any other Anganwadi workers, contract teachers or Central Government employees who are registered as voters in that particular booth. If the above two category employees are not found

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:09:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15144] (3 of 4) [CW-7430/2026]

registered as elector in the booth, then any other person from any other areas can be appointed in that booth, even though they are not registered as voters in that booth.

4. The petitioner's claim is that there are employees who are registered voters in the respective booth for which the petitioner was appointed. In spite of availability of such employees, the petitioner was appointed in the said booth and the appointment order does not indicate that the categories of employees as detailed in Clause 1.1 and 1.2 were not available so that the petitioner could be appointed to the said booth though she is not a registered voter in that booth.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case may be reconsidered in case any of the employees referred in Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the amended Guidelines dated 05.06.2025 are available, they shall be appointed as BLO instead of the petitioner who is not a registered elector in the said booth.

6. The request made by the petitioner appears to be in tune with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India. On a clear reading of the impugned order of appointment it can be seen that there is no indication in the appointment order that the appointment of the petitioner as an Booth Level Officer where she was not a registered voter was resorted to on account of non availability of employees categorized in Clause 1.1 and 1.2 in the amended guidelines dated 05.06.2025. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation indicating the names of the employees who are available in the booth for which the petitioner was appointed as BLO within a period of one week. If any such representation is made, the respondent authority shall reconsider the order of appointing the petitioner as BLO and pass appropriate orders within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. Till such representation is disposed of, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for not joining in consequence of the appointment order. However, the respondents are given liberty to continue the order if the authorities found that the officer of category 1 and 2 are not available, they can resort to clause 1.3 of the guidelines.

9. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."

4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of

in same terms and with same directions as given in the case of

Rajesh Kumar Meena (supra). The petitioner is at liberty to make

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:09:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15144] (4 of 4) [CW-7430/2026]

a representation indicating the names of the employees who are

available in the booth for which the petitioner was appointed as

BLO within a period of one week. If any such representation is

made, the respondent authority shall reconsider the order of

appointing the petitioner as BLO and pass appropriate orders

within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.