SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 1688

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MUNNURI LAXMAN
PAWAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 2344 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5589]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2344/2026

Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Prem Shankar Meena, Aged About 33

Years, R/o 208, Ganesh Ganj Ka Rasta, Ranodiya, Tehsil Pipalda,

District Kota At Present Working As Lab Assistant (Teacher)

Government Senior Secondary School, Banar, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral

Officer, Department Of Election, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan,bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer, (Secondary Education),

District Jodhpur.

4. The Election Officer (Collector), District Jodhpur.

5. The Election Registration Officer S.d.m., (126),

Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh

Mr. Mahesh Chandra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

30/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the

impugned orders dated 17.12.2025 (Annex.2) whereby the

petitioner has been appointed as ‘Booth Level Officer’ (BLO) for

polling booth Government Sr. Secondary School, Khohkhariya Left

Division, District Jodhpur, Bhag Sankhya 324, whereas the

petitioner is elector/voter of Ranodiya, District Kota. 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’

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 04:46:54 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 08:53:28 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:5589] (2 of 4) [CW-2344/2026]

(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 04:46:54 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 08:53:28 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:5589] (3 of 4) [CW-2344/2026]

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top