The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the appointment of a Booth Level Officer (BLO) must strictly adhere to the Election Commission of India's guidelines, which prioritize individuals who are registered electors in the specific polling booth. The Court emphasized that deviation from this hierarchy is permissible only when no eligible candidates from higher-priority categories are available. This ruling reinforces procedural compliance in electoral administration and sets a binding standard for state authorities.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Rajasthan High Court held that a Booth Level Officer (BLO) must be a registered elector of the polling booth to which they are assigned, as mandated by the Election Commission’s guidelines under Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Court quashed the appointment order against the petitioner, who was not a voter in the booth, and directed the authorities to reconsider the appointment if eligible electors from priority categories are available.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Hansraj Dayma, was appointed as a Booth Level Officer for Polling Booth No. 65 at the Government Senior Secondary School in Dingli, Alwar district. He is not a registered voter in that constituency. He challenged the appointment order dated 24 December 2025, arguing that it violated the Election Commission of India’s guidelines issued on 9 June 2025, which establish a clear hierarchy for BLO appointments.
The guidelines prioritize the appointment of Group-C and above regular state or local government employees who are enrolled as electors in the specific polling booth. Only in their absence may Anganwadi workers, contract teachers, or central government employees be considered - provided they too are registered voters in that booth. If none of these categories are available, the District Election Officer may, with prior approval, appoint someone from outside the booth.
The petitioner contended that eligible employees meeting the criteria under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the guidelines were available in the booth, yet he was appointed instead. The appointment order did not mention any attempt to verify the availability of such candidates or obtain the required non-availability certificate. The State did not dispute the existence of eligible voters in the booth but failed to justify the deviation from the prescribed order.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the appointment order and direction for reconsideration.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appointment of a Booth Level Officer who is not a registered elector of the polling booth violates the Election Commission’s binding guidelines, and whether such an appointment can be sustained in the absence of documented non-availability of eligible candidates from higher-priority categories.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Election Commission’s guidelines are not merely advisory but form part of the statutory framework under Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. He cited Clauses 1.1 and 1.2, which mandate that BLOs must be electors of the respective polling booth, and emphasized that the appointment order lacked any certification of non-availability of eligible candidates. He further submitted that the State’s failure to follow the hierarchy undermines electoral integrity and invites arbitrariness.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the existence of eligible electors in the booth but argued that the appointment was made in the interest of administrative convenience and operational efficiency. The counsel contended that the guidelines are directory, not mandatory, and that the State retains discretion in appointing BLOs based on local exigencies. However, no documentary evidence or justification was produced to support the deviation from the prescribed order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and purposive interpretation of the Election Commission’s guidelines, noting that they were issued under the authority of Section 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which empowers the Commission to regulate the appointment of BLOs. The guidelines are not mere suggestions but constitute a structured, hierarchical framework designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and local representation in electoral processes.
"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."
The Court observed that the appointment order was silent on whether the authorities had verified the availability of eligible candidates under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2. The absence of a non-availability certificate, as required under Clause 1.2, rendered the appointment procedurally defective. The Court rejected the State’s argument of administrative convenience, holding that procedural compliance is not optional in matters of electoral governance.
The Court further noted that Clause 1.3 permits appointment of non-resident candidates only as a last resort, after exhausting all options under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2. Since the record showed no such exhaustion, the appointment was unsustainable.
The Court declined to quash the appointment outright, recognizing that the authorities might genuinely lack eligible candidates. Instead, it granted the petitioner an opportunity to identify eligible electors in the booth and directed the State to reconsider the appointment within a stipulated timeframe.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a binding precedent that BLO appointments must strictly follow the Election Commission’s hierarchical guidelines. Practitioners must now ensure that any challenge to a BLO appointment includes verification of whether the appointing authority documented the non-availability of eligible candidates from priority categories. Failure to produce such documentation will render the appointment liable to be set aside.
The ruling also reinforces that administrative convenience cannot override statutory or quasi-statutory guidelines in electoral matters. State authorities must now maintain and produce records of candidate availability checks before appointing non-resident BLOs. This will likely lead to increased scrutiny of appointment records in future election-related litigation.
The judgment does not prohibit the appointment of non-residents entirely but makes it contingent on demonstrable compliance with the prescribed hierarchy. Practitioners should advise clients to request and retain non-availability certificates as a matter of routine procedure.
