Pawan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 6 Others

Heard Sri Deepak Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party nos.1, 4, 5 & 6; Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India-opposite party no.2 and Sri Anindya Shastri, learned counsel for the State Election Commission-opposite party no.3.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶13

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Up-Ziladhikari Colonelganj, Gonda to appoint and assign work to the Booth Level Officers in the Gram Sabha-Patisa, Block- Haldharmau, District- Gonda in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India on 05.06.2025 to the Chief Electoral Officers, all states and Union Territories of India (contained as Annexure no.3), in the interest of justice."

¶14

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, the B.L.O. are to be appointed from amongst Group-C and regular serving employees of State/local government and in the absence of regular State/local government employee, E.R.O. may appoint B.L.O. amongst Anganwadi workers, contract teachers or Central Government employees.

¶15

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such cases, the Chief Electoral Officer shall obtain a non-availability certificate signed by E.R.O. and countersigned by D.E.O. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Rojgar Sewak does not come in the ambit of regular serving employee of State/local government and therefore he cannot be appointed as B.L.O.

¶16

WRIC No. 10506 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the anomalies in the instant case have been brought to the notice of the concerned authority by preferring several representations before the Sub Divisional Officer, Colonelganj, DistrictGonda, but the same have not been taken into consideration.

¶19

Sri. O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the annexure no.9 to the writ petition itself shows that the complaint filed by the petitioner was entertained by the Sub Divisional Officer on 06.10.2025.

¶20

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents, on the basis of the instructions dated 14.11.2025 received from the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Colonelganj, District- Gonda, submitted that vide order dated 04.10.2025, one Sushma Tiwari who was appointed as B.L.O. has been removed and in her place Gyan Dubey and Rajesh Shukla have been appointed as the Booth Level Officers. The said instructions are taken on record.

¶21

Be that as it may, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation narrating the facts in detail and all other pleas that are available to him before the Sub Divisional Officer, Colonelganj, District- Gonda (Opposite Party No.5) within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by the opposite party no.5 within the time frame as provided by this Court, the Sub Divisional Officer, Colonelganj, District- Gonda shall examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the relevant rules and guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. It is expected that the said authority shall endeavour to dispose of the said representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of said representation by passing a reasoned order.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶23

November 15, 2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶24

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj 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

Mamta Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Jay Nand Paramedical College Thru. Manager,Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Jay Nand Paramedical College Thru. Manager,Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Awdhesh Tiwari Vs Distt. Magistrate Ayodhya Distt. Ayodhya and 6 Others

Awdhesh Tiwari vs Distt. Magistrate Ayodhya Distt. Ayodhya and 6 Others

Yadunath Vs Addl. Distt. Judge / Prevention Corruption Lko and 9 Others