[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramhet Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6856) on 6 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6856]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22884/2025
Ramhet Meghwal S/o Mohanlal Meghwal, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Vp Anthda, Tehsil Bundi District Bundi, Raj Presently At
Rajasthan Higher Secondary School, Panchrala, Block Fagliya,
Tehsil Serva, District Barmer, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral Officer,
State Election Commission, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The District Election Officer (Collector), Barmer.
3. The Electoral Registration Officer Cum Sub Division
Magistrate (Sdm), Chohtan, District Barmer.
4. The District Education Officer, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash
Mr. Sunil Nain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
06/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
action of the respondents in appointing the petitioner as a Booth
Level Officer (BLO) in Raj. Higher Secondary School, Panchrala,
Block Fagliya, Tehsil Serva, District Barmer, (Raj.).
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a
registered voter in VP Anthda, Tehsil Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.)
3. 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
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6856] (2 of 4) [CW-22884/2025]
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."
4. 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 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.
5. 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
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6856] (3 of 4) [CW-22884/2025]
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 he is not a
registered voter in that booth.
6. 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.
7. 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
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.
8. 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. 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.
9. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner for not joining in consequence of the appointment order.
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6856] (4 of 4) [CW-22884/2025]
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.
10. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
275-PKS/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:00:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
