[2025:RJ-JP:37672] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14025/2025 Madan Lal Saini S/o Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 1427, Village Sainipura, Malarana Doongar, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education (Headquarter), Sawaimadhopur. 4. The District Election Officer (Collector), Sawaimadhopur. 5. The Election Registration Officer (S.d.m.), Assembly Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Teacher Grade-III Level 2 SST in Government Upper Primary School, Badila, Block Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) and his name does not find place in the electoral roll of that area, yet he has been appointed as Booth Level Officer, which is evident from the certificate of the employer-school of the petitioner dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure-2). [2025:RJ-JP:37672] (2 of 3) [CW-14025/2025] 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.1 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 Clause1.3 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 Clause1.3 of the modified guideline. 20. So far as prior approval of CEO in terms of Clause1.3 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. 22. Evidently, the respondents have adhered to Clause1.3 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. 1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12975/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:37672] (3 of 3) [CW-14025/2025] 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 betaken 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 light of the aforesaid judgment of Ten Singh (supra). 4. In light of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the Competent Authority within two (2) weeks from today. 5. The Competent Authority shall pass a speaking order by considering the aforesaid judgment of Ten Singh (supra) within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, along with copy of this order. It is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on the merits/de-merits of the case. 6. Ordered accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J ANAND TANWAR /28