[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nitesh Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6682]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2437/2026
1. Nitesh Kumar S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Benawato Ki Dhani, Narwa Khurd, Nagaur.
2. Ranjeet Fulwa S/o Shri Hiralal Fulwa, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Bara Gaon, Baragaon,
Jhunjhunu, Raj.
3. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Ranchhor Ji, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Agarpura Colony, Behind Government Collect,
Banswara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral
Officer, State Election Commission, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Election Officer (Collector), District Jalore.
3. The District Election Officer (Collector), District Udaipur.
4. The Electoral Registration Officer (SDM), Chitalwana,
Jalore.
5. The Electoral Registration Officer (SDM), Karanpur,
Udaipur.
6. The Electoral Registration Officer (SDM), Bhinder, Udaipur.
7. The ERO-SDM, Vallabhnagar, Udaipur.
8. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
9. Chief Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chitalwana,
Jalore.
10. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Bhinder, Udaipur.
11. The District Education Officer (Elementary), Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
05/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 16.12.2025 (Annex.4) whereby the
petitioners No.1, 2 & 3 have been appointed as 'Booth Level
Officer' (BLO) for Polling Booth No.34, Government Higher
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6682] (2 of 4) [CW-2437/2026]
Secondary School, Karanpur, Room No.2, Booth No.21,
Government Higher Secondary School, Vallabhnagar, Room No.4
and Booth No.96, Government Upper Primary School, Manderiya,
Room No.2, respectively, whereas the petitioners No.1, 2 & 3 are
not registered elector/voter. They further submit that as per the
instructions of the Election Commissioner of India issued vide
order dated 09.06.2025, a 'Booth Level Officer' (BLO) should be a
voter in the polling station where, they are deputed as 'Booth
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
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6682] (3 of 4) [CW-2437/2026]
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 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 petitioners' claim is that there are employees who are
registered voters in the respective booth for which the petitioners
were appointed. In spite of availability of such employees, the
petitioners were 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
petitioners could be appointed to the said booth though they are
not a registered voter in that booth.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that
the petitioners' 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 petitioners who are 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 a Booth Level Officer where he
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6682] (4 of 4) [CW-2437/2026]
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 petitioners to make a representation indicating the names of
the employees who are available in the booth for which the
petitioners were appointed as BLO. If any such representation is
made within a period of week from today, the respondent
authority shall reconsider the order of appointing the petitioners
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 off, no coercive steps
shall be taken against the petitioners 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.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
186s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:01:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
