[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhchain Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:20227]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8219/2026
Sukhchain Singh S/o Lakhveer Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village 9-Z, P.o. 11-Z, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.),
Presently Working As Teacher Lever-1 At Mahatma Gandhi
Government School, Shyam Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral
Officer, State Election Commission, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Sri Ganganagar.
3. The District Election Officer-Cum-District Collector, Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. The Electoral Registration Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Nagpal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
28/04/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is holding the post of Physical Teacher Level-I in
Mahatma Gandhi Government School, Shyam Nagar, Sri
Ganganagar and his name does not find place in the electoral roll
of Sri Ganganagar, yet he has been appointed as Booth Level
Officer vide order dated 23.03.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the issue involved in the instant writ petition has been examined
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:26:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20227] (2 of 3) [CW-8219/2026]
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur
in the case of Ten Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.12975/2025), wherein following
observations and directions were given:-
".......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
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.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:26:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20227] (3 of 3) [CW-8219/2026]
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 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."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may
also be permitted to file a detailed representation before the
Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances in the light of
aforesaid judgment of Ten Singh (supra).
4. In the light of above, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation
before the Competent Authority against the impugned order dated
23.03.2026. The Competent Authority shall pass a speaking order
by considering the aforesaid judgment of Ten Singh (supra)
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
representation along with a copy of this order.
5. Ordered accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
59-AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:26:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
