[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanheya Lal Jat vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10063) on 25 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10063]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4731/2026
Kanheya Lal Jat S/o Rameshwar Prasad Jat, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Chandra Ki Dhani, Morija, Choumu, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Government Secretary, Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Distrcit Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Jalore.
4. The District Election Officer (Collector), Jalore.
5. The Election Registration Officer (S.d.m.), Ahore, District
Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
25/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"i. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof
thereby, the Impugned Order dated 07.10.2023 (Annex.1) may
kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
ii. 1 Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof
thereby, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioner as
Teacher Gr. III at Govt. Girls
iii. Upper Primary School, Bala, Ahore, District Jalore after taking
charge of BLO from the petitioner. iii. Issue an appropriate writ order
or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the action of the
respondents be declared illegal by which they have posted the
petitioner as Booth Level Officer."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:03:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10063] (2 of 4) [CW-4731/2026]
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
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.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:03:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10063] (3 of 4) [CW-4731/2026]
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
a representation indicating the names of the employees who are
available in the booth for which the petitioner was appointed as
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:03:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10063] (4 of 4) [CW-4731/2026]
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.
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.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
254-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:03:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
