[2025:RJ-JD:36942]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15769/2025 Manish Meghwal S/o Manna Lal Meghwal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ukhedi, Mala Falan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. District Secondary Education Officer, Headquarter, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Peeo-Cum-Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Madar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. District Collector-Cum-District Election Officer, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

19/08/2025

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 Gogunda Block for Bhag Sankhya 29 (Madar).

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not a registered voter in the constituency where the petitioner has been appointed as BLO.

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 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 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 Cou