Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14805 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶2The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the list dated

27.08.2025 with respect to the petitioner, wherein he has been deputed as Booth Level Officer in Gram Panchayat-11-Bahrampur.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is posted as Assistant Teacher in Senior Primary School, Bahrampur, Block-Sidholi Kadim, Saharanpur. He further submits that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions contained under Section 27 of Right of Children of Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which mandates that no teacher shall be appointed for any non-educational purposes as well as against the guidelines. The issue has already been settled in the case of Surya Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, passed in Writ A No.16401 of 2024, decided on 11.02.2025 , therefore, the impugned order may be quashed.

¶4Learned Standing counsel submits that Election Commission of India has issued a circular dated 05.06.2025 changing the guidelines, thus, the appointment of Booth Level Officers shall be in accordance with the aforesaid directions, in which the guidelines stand modified 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 Act, 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jay Prakash Singh Rajeev Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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.

1.4 In any other case, prior approval from the Commission shall be mandatory."

¶5In the aforesaid circular, all the Chief Electoral Officers have been requested for strict compliance of the above said guidelines as the deputation of Booth Level Officers is a policy matter, which now has to be seen in accordance with the circular dated 05.06.2025.

¶6Learned standing counsel further submits that the present case is a policy matter and that no such statutory provision has been violated, therefore, the submission and reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable here. He relies on the judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of Dr. R.K. Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 658, in which the Court recognized the executive's discretion in policy matters.

¶7In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶8However, it is provided that in case the petitioner moves a representation, ventilating all his grievances, before the authorities concerned, the same shall be consider and decided, in accordance with the new modified guidelines, as expeditiously as possible. September 26, 2025 Rahul. WRIA No. 14805 of 2025 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad