Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kamlesh Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 1 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:34078]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14440/2025
Kamlesh Meena S/o Dhanpal Meena, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of 5, Dhani Road Ke Pass, Bavdi Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Alwar, At Persent Einor Teacher Gsss Senai Luni Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral
Officer, State Election Commission, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. The District Election Officer (Collector), District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
3. The Electoral Registration Officer Cum Sub Division
Magistrate (Sdm), Luni, Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
District Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
District Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhimraj Mudia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Suthar, AGC for
Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG
Mr. Ravindra Jala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
01/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the
order impugned whereby the petitioner has been appointed as
Booth Level Officers (BLOs).
2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per
instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 of the Election
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (2 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
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 petitioner 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
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (3 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
employees as prescribed in Clause 1.1 & Clause 1.2 of the
modified guidelines of ECI.
5. 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 Clause
1.2 of the guidelines, was even required.
6. 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
same has definitely been taken by the State Department and
hence, the orders impugned are totally in consonance with the
directions as issued by the ECI.
7. Counsels further submit that so far as non-availability of the
employees who were the electors of the concerned area is
concerned, the same was very well ensured from all the respective
schools/institutions prior to the issuance of orders of appointment
of the BLOs.
8. In support of their submissions, counsels relied upon the
Co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.17945/2021; Mahesh Swami vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (decided on 16.03.2022) and S.B. Civil Writ
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (4 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
Petition No.4962/2024; Tulsi Ram Munsiya vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (decided 09.12.2024).
9. Counsels, with the above submissions, prayed for dismissal
of the present writ petitions.
10. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
11. So far as the necessity of obtaining the ‘Non-availability
Certificate’ in terms of Clause 1.2 of the modified guidelines of ECI
is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that the same
would apply only when the BLOs are to be appointed amongst
Anganwadi workers, Contract Teachers or Central Government
employees. Only if such category of employees were to be
appointed as BLO, the CEO was under a mandate to obtain a ‘Non-
availability Certificate’ as prescribed under Clause 1.2. But
admittedly, the Department has not proceeded in terms of Clause
1.2 but has appointed the present petitioners as BLOs while
adhering to Clause 1.3 of the modified guidelines of ECI.
12. For ready reference, reproduction of Clause 1 of instructions/
guidelines dated 04.10.2022 and communication dated
05.06.2025 would be apt.
13. Clause 1 of Instructions/guidelines of Election Commission of
India dated 04.10.2022 provides as under:
“1. Appointment of Booth Level Officers
1.1 Booth Level Officers are to be appointed by the
Electoral Registration Officer under Section 13B (2) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950 after obtaining
approval of the District Election Officer. They shall deem to
be on deputation of the Election Commission of India
under section 13CC of the RP. Act, 1950.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (5 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
1.2 Booth Level Officer can be appointed from the
following suggested list of categories Government/Semi
Government employees:-
(i) Teachers
(ii) Anganwadi workers,
(iii) Patwari/Amin/Lekhpal,
(iv) Panchayat Secretary,
(v) Village Level Workers,
(vi) Electricity Bill Readers,
(vii) Postman,
(viii) Auxiliary Nurses & Mid-wives,
(ix) Health workers,
(x) Mid-day Meal workers,
(xi) Contract teachers,
(xii) Corporation Tax Collectors, and
(xiii) Clerical Staff in Urban area (UDC/LDC etc.)
1.3 Besides the above list, the following
official/individuals can also be appointed/drafted as BLO:-
a. Central Government employees can be drafted only
when prescribed/suggested 13 prescribed options have
been exhausted.
b. Group ‘B’ officers can be drafted if prescribed/suggested
13 prescribed options have been exhausted.
c. Willing Retired government servant only where serving
government servants are not available within the polling
area. However, in rural area, the District Election Officer
shall give a non-availability certificate (Annexure-I) in
such cases.
d. Any specific category as and when required on case to
case basis by CEO of concerned State, after prior approval
of the Commission.
1.4 To the extent possible, a Booth Level Officer should
be an elector in the polling station where she he is
deputed uted-as-Booth Level Officer. However, for the
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (6 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
urban area ACs, if it is found more feasible by the CEO,
work area may be aligned with their work place of original
department/organization.
1.5 Following points should also be ensured before
deployment of BLOs:-
a……
b……
c……
d. Teachers shall be drafted minimally as Booth Level
Officers. However, where necessary, they should be
drafted for Booth Level Officer work during holidays and
during non-teaching hours and non-teaching days so as to
avoid any loss of academic work. It must be ensured that
no teacher of a single teacher school is deployed for this
purpose.”
14. The above Clause was modified vide communication dated
05.06.2025 which reads as under:
“I am directed to refer to the Commission’s Guidelines No.
23/BLO/2022-ERS dated 4th October 2022, issued with
regards to the appointment of Booth Level Officers. In
accordance with the directions given by the Hon’ble
Commission during the Chief Electoral Officer’s Conference
held on 23rd May 2025 in New Delhi, it is hereby stated
that the instructions contained in paragraph 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
and 1.4 of the above-mentioned guidelines and in
paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 & 5.2. of Manual on
Electoral Rolls-2023, stand modified as follows:
1.1 ERO to appoint a BLO for each part of an electoral
roll, under Section 138 (2) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1950, amongst any Group C and above
regular serving employees of state/local government
enrolled as elector in that part.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (7 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
1.2 In the absence of regular state/local government
employees, ERO may appoint BLO amongst Anganwadi
warkers, Contract Teachers, or central government
employees. However, in such cases, CEO shall obtain a
non-availability certificate (Annexure-1) signed 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.
1.4 In any other case, prior approval from the
Commission shall be mandatory.
2. All Chief Electoral Officers are requested for the strict
compliance of the above said guidelines of the Commission
and to send an ATR by 20th June, 2025 positively.”
15. What can be interpreted and concluded from the above
Clauses is that the first priority for appointment of Booth Level
Officer is to be given to those regular State/local Government
employees who are the electors of the concerned area where they
are to be deployed as BLOs.
16. If no employee falling in the above category is available, the
BLOs can be appointed amongst the Anganwadi workers, Contract
Teachers or Central Government employees. But then, they also
ought to be the elector of the concerned electoral area. However,
if such employees are to be deployed, a ‘Non-availability
Certificate’ was to be procured by the CEO.
17. In case of non-availability of the employees of both the
above categories i.e. the regular or the contractual employees who
are the electors of the concerned electoral area, adherence to
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (8 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
Clause 1.3 of the guidelines could be made. Clause 1.3 of the
modified guidelines of ECI specifically provides for appointment of
BLOs from all such categories of employees who are working in
the areas covered by that part of electoral roll. The only essential
requirement in terms of Clause 1.3 of the guidelines is that it
ought to have a prior approval of CEO.
18. Coming on to the present matters, as has been submitted in
the reply to the writ petitions, the non-availability of both the
categories of employees as prescribed in Clause 1.1 & 1.2 of the
guidelines was ensured by the respondents before adhering to
Clause 1.3 of the modified guideline.
19. So far as prior approval of CEO in terms of Clause 1.3 is
concerned, there is no dispute on the same as such approval has
been obtained and the relevant documents have even been
annexed along with the reply.
20. In view of the above, the ground as raised on behalf of the
petitioners to the effect that in no case, the employees working in
the concerned area could be deployed as BLOs without first
obtaining the ‘Non-availability Certificate’ qua regular State/local
Government employees or the other contractual and Aanganwadi
workers, is not tenable.
21. Evidently, the respondents have adhered to Clause 1.3 of the
guidelines and as observed above, the only requirement for the
said purpose is the approval of CEO, which has been taken.
22. The orders impugned on that count therefore, do not deserve
any interference.
23. Coming on to the ground that regular State/local
Government employees and Aanganwadi workers who are the
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34078] (9 of 9) [CW-14440/2025]
electors of the concerned electoral area are available and despite
such candidates being available, the petitioners have erroneously
been deployed without adhering to Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of the
guidelines. This Court is of the opinion that the said aspect can be
taken care of by directing the respondent authorities to consider
the representation of the petitioners on that aspect.
24. In view of the above facts, the present writ petitions are
disposed of with the following directions :
(i) If any representation is filed by the petitioner/s within a
period of twenty days from now, identifying any regular
State/local Government employee who is the elector of the
concerned area, the respondent authorities shall be under an
obligation to strictly comply with Clause 1.1 of the
instructions/guidelines dated 04.10.2022 (as modified vide
communication dated 05.06.2025) of the ECI.
(ii) If a representation is filed by any of the petitioner/s within a
period of twenty days to the effect that he/she is a single teacher
in the concerned school, the respondent authorities shall be under
an obligation to verify the said fact and if it is found true, such
petitioner shall be relieved from the duties of BLO with immediate
effect.
25. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
48-Samvedana/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:49:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)