Court clarified that Election Commission guidelines prioritize local State employees for Booth Level Officer appointments, requiring compliance with specific procedural mandates.

ORDER :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12975/2025 (Ten Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

“1. The present writ petitions have been filed aggrieved of the orders impugned whereby the petitioners have been appointed as Booth Level Officers (BLO).

2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that as per instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 of the Election Commission of India (ECI), a Booth Level Officer should be an elector of the polling station where he/she is deputed as BLO. Instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 were however modified vide communication dated 05.06.2025 and as per the said modification, it is only when a regular State/local Government employee registered as an elector in the concerned electoral area is not available, that an employee working in the area covered by that part of electoral roll, can be appointed.

3. Counsel for the petitioners while relying upon clause 1.2 of instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 (as modified vide communication dated 05.06.2025) submitted that in absence of regular State/local Government employee, other Aaganwadi Workers, Contractual Teachers or Central Government employees could have been appointed as BLOs. It is only in extreme cases where neither the regular State/local Government employees nor the other employees as above-mentioned are available that the employees working in the area covered by that part of electoral roll can be appointed and that too, only after obtaining a ‘Non- availability Certificate’ signed by Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) and counter-signed by District Election Officer (DEO).

4. The case of the petitioners is that no ‘Non-availability Certificate’ was procured by the respondent authorities to ensure that no regular State/local Government employees who were enrolled as electors in the electoral roll of the concerned area, are available. In absence of any such ‘Non- availability Certificate’, the respondent-Department could not have adhered to Clause 1.3 of the guidelines without first ascertaining the non-availability of employees as prescribed in Clause 1.1 & Clause 1.2 of the modified guidelines of ECI.

5. Counsels in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.12741/2025 &13510/2025 raised two additional grounds:

i. There definitely were certain regular employees available who were enrolled in the electoral roll of the concerned area. Despite there being such regular employees available, the petitioners have been appointed as BLOs which is in contravention to the guidelines of ECI.

ii. The petitioner is a single teacher in the concerned school and in terms of Clause 1.5(d) of instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 of ECI, no teacher of a single teacher school could have been deployed as a BLO.

6. Per contra counsels for the respondent-Department submitted that the necessity to obtain the ‘Non-availability Certificate’ is only in the case where the Department was to proceed in terms of Clause 1.2 of the guidelines. Herein, the Department proceeded in terms of Clause 1.3 of the guidelines and hence, no ‘Non-availability Certificate’ as prescribed in Clause1.2 of the guidelines, was even required.

7. Counsels submit that Clause 1.3 of the modified guidelines specifically prescribes that in case of non- availability of the employees in terms of Clause 1.1 & Clause 1.2, BLOs could be appointed amongst such employees who were working in the area covered by that part of electoral roll. The only requisite as per Clause 1.3 is that a prior approval of CEO ought to be taken. The