Disposed¶20

Yogendra Kumar Sagar and Another v. the Chief Election Officer U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Booth Level Officer duty – teachers

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026WRIA/1908/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Booth Level Officers; BLO; Special Intensive Revision 2026; Assembly Constitution Mapping 2002-2025; Electoral Roll Revision; teachers; school timings; circulars dated 4th October 2022 and 5th June 2025; Chief Electoral Officer U.P. order dated 18th February 2026; Surya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Writ-A No. 16401 of 2024; writ disposed with directions; Manish Mathur, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Writ-A No. 1908 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to the parties to adhere to the conditions indicated in Surya Pratap Singh (supra) and to engage teachers such as the petitioners only in case of unavailability of any other employees; the school-hours condition for BLO duty having already been dispensed with. ¶20

Yogendra Kumar Sagar and Another vs the Chief Election Officer U.P. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are teachers imparting education, can be restrained or excluded from deployment as Booth Level Officers for duties in Special Intensive Revision 2026 (Assembly Constitution Mapping 2002-2025), such duties allegedly hampering school timings. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

There is no order or judgment excluding teachers from being engaged as Booth Level Officers for the purpose of Electoral Roll Revision.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The condition of teachers performing such BLO duties during school hours has already been dispensed with.

¶18

Key takeaways

The opposite parties are directed to adhere to the conditions indicated in Surya Pratap Singh (supra) and to engage teachers such as the petitioners only in case of unavailability of any other employees.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Booth Level Officer duty – teachers – Special Intensive Revision 2026 (Assembly Constitution Mapping 2002-2025) – Writ-A No. 1908 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench), disposed of on 26.02.2026 by Manish Mathur, J. Petitioners (Yogendra Kumar Sagar and another), serving teachers, sought restraint on their deployment as Booth Level Officers, contending such duty hampers school timings and that circulars dated 4th October 2022 and 5th June 2025 permit engaging teachers only when other employees are unavailable. The Court found no order or judgment excluding teachers from BLO engagement for Electoral Roll Revision; noted that the condition of performing such duties during school hours had already been dispensed with pursuant to the Chief Electoral Officer (U.P.) order dated 18.02.2026; and directed adherence to the conditions in Surya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 16401 of 2024 – teachers to be engaged only in case of unavailability of any other employees.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1908 of 2026

¶3

Yogendra Kumar Sagar And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Chief Election Officer U.P. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Yadava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen, Prashant Kumar Singh

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Avinash Singh Vishen learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4 and 6 and learned state counsel for opposite party No.5.

¶12

Petition has been filed challenging appointment of petitioners as Booth Level Officers and for a direction to opposite parties to restrain them from deploying petitioners as Booth Level Officers for duties in Special Intensive Revision 2026 for Assembly Constitution Mapping 2002-2025.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioners performing essential duties of imparting education to young minds are required to be excluded from aforesaid duties particularly since they hamper the school timings. It is also submitted that as per circulars dated 4th October 2022 and 5th June 2025, teachers are required to be engaged for such services only in case other employees are unavailable. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Surya Pratap Singh vs State of UP writ A No. 16401 of 2024.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite parties on the basis of instructions has furnished order dated 18th February 2026 issued from the office of Chief Electoral Officer, U.P. to the effect that presence of teachers from 10 A.M. 12:00 till P.M. for such duty has been withdrawn. It is submitted that in pursuance of aforesaid order, the teachers are required to perform their duties as Booth Level Officers only once the school timings are

¶15

WRIA No. 1908 of 2026

¶16

¶17

over. It is submitted that directions issued in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) shall be followed scrupulously.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that there is no order or judgment excluding teachers from being engaged as Booth Level Officers for purpose of Electoral Roll Revision. The condition of their performing such duties during school hours has already been dispensed with.

¶19

In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties., they are therefore directed to adhere to conditions indicated in the case of Surya Pratap Singh (supra) and engaged teachers such as petitioners only in case of unavailability of any other employees.

¶20

With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶22

February 26, 2026

¶23

prabhat

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yogendra Kumar Sagar and Another v. the Chief Election Officer U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Sagar and Another v. the Chief Election Officer U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramhit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Youth Welfare and Prantiya Rakshak Dal Lko. and Another

Vaibhav Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Kishor Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Ran Chhor Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Brahmadin Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Addl. Source of Energy Lko. and 2 Others

Manoj Mishra vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others