Srashti Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025WRIA/9050/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Booth Level Officer (BLO) appointment challenge; Circular dated 10.06.2025 on BLOs being registered voters of their polling station; Electoral Registering Officer (respondent no.3) directed to decide fresh representation by reasoned and speaking order; writ petition disposed without adjudicating merits; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, WRIT - A No. 9050 of 2025, Abdul Moin J., decided 14.8.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:47585.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off with consent: liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks before respondent no.3, who shall endeavour to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within a further four weeks along with certified copy of this order. ¶¶15

Srashti Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47585

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9050 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Srashti Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anupriya Srivastava,Net Ram,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3, Sri Netram, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, Sri Satyam Yadav holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.6, and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 20.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to her whereby she has been assigned the duty as Booth Level Officer.

¶9

Placing reliance on the Circular dated 10.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, the contention is that the said circular categorically provides that Booth Level Officers should only be appointed at the Polling Station in which they are registered voter.

¶10

Placing reliance on the general averments made in paragraph 12 of the petition the contention is that there are five other persons who are residents of the same village and cast their votes in the same school and as such those are the persons who should have been appointed as BLO instead of the petitioner.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsels for respondents state that this aspect of the matter can very well be considered by the Electoral Registering Officer i.e. respondent no.3.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some

¶13

length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.3 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned counsels appearing for respondents have no objection.

¶14

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before respondent no.3 then respondent no.3 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶15

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.8.2025

¶18

A. Katiyar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srashti Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srashti Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj and Anr.

Raghvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 5 Others

Himanshu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ravi Kant Upadhyay and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others

Jagdamba Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 4 Others