[2025:RJ-JP:36537] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13743/2025 Rajesh Kumar Verma Son Of Shri Babu Lal Verma, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Mahajan Mohalla, Nangal Ladi, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Electoral Officer, State Election Commission, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. District Election Officer, (Collector), Alwar, Rural (Raj.) 3. Electoral Registration Officer, Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar Rural, District Alwar (Raj.) 4. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar (Raj.) 6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Umrain, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Sepat for Ms. Komal Kumari Giri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I in Government Senior Secondary School, Kesarpupr (Block Umrain, Alwar) and his name does not find place in the electoral roll of Umrain-Alwar, yet he has been appointed as Booth Level Officer vide order dated 22.08.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:36537] (2 of 3) [CW-13743/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has been examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Ten Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.CWP No.12975/2025) wherein following observations and directions were given:- "16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:36537] (3 of 3) [CW-13743/2025] 22. 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. 23. The orders impugned on that count therefore, do not deserve any interference. 24. Coming on to the ground that regular State/local Government employees and Aanganwadi workers who are the 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." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may also be permitted to file a detailed representation before the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances in the light of aforesaid judgment of Ten Singh (supra). 4. In the light of above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the Competent Authority against the impugned order dated 22.08.2025. The Competent Authority shall pass a speaking order by considering the aforesaid judgment of Ten Singh (supra) within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of representation along with copy of this order. It is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on merits of the case. 5. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /42