[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suwa Lal Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5560]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1994/2026
Suwa Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Sahay Meena, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Badgotiyo Ki Dhani, Post Boodthal, Teh. Bassi
District Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral
Officer, State Election Commission, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Election Officer (Collector), District Bikaner.
3. The Electoral Registration Officer Cum Sub Division
Magistrate (Sdm), Kolayat, District Bikaner.
4. The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.
5. The District Education Officers (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Jat.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
30/01/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
impugned orders dated 21.02.2023 (Annex.3), whereby the
petitioner has been appointed as 'Booth Level Officer' (BLO) for
Polling Booth No. 146, New Booth No.172, Sr. Sec. School, Left
Part Kotdi, Tehsil-Kolayat, District-Bikaner, whereas the petitioner
is elector/voter of Booth No. 170, Budthal, Assembly-Bassi,
District-Jaipur. He further submits that as per the instructions of
the Election Commission of India issued vide order dated
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:13:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5560] (2 of 4) [CW-1994/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:13:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5560] (3 of 4) [CW-1994/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:13:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5560] (4 of 4) [CW-1994/2026]
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 off, 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.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
109-PKS/-
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 02:13:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
