Allahabad High Court
NAFEES AHMAD ANSARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The court held that the deputation does not contravene any statutory provision and is a policy matter, so no interference is warranted, though the petitioner’s representation must be considered expeditiously.
Summary
Petitioner Nafees Ahmad Ansari challenged an order dated 12‑04‑2026 that deputed him to Census 2027 training and duty despite his representation seeking exemption on personal hardship grounds. He argued that the order violated Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which bars teachers from being appointed for non‑educational purposes, and relied on the earlier decision in Surya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Respondents contended that the deputation was governed by the Election Commission’s circular of 05‑06‑2025 on Booth Level Officer appointments, a policy matter not subject to statutory limitation, and cited Dr. R.K. Goyal v. State of U.P. for executive discretion. The Court held that no statutory provision was infringed and therefore declined to interfere, but directed that the petitioner’s representation be considered expeditiously under the new guidelines. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order deputing the petitioner to census duty violates Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
- Whether the appointment of the petitioner as a Booth Level Officer under the Election Commission’s circular constitutes a policy matter beyond judicial review.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- census deputation
- right to education
- RTE Act
- policy matter
- executive discretion
- Booth Level Officer
- representation
- civil service
- employment law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6894 of 2026
Nafees Ahmad Ansari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging an order
dated 12.04.2026 passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner has
been deputed for Census 2027 training and duty without considering his
representation and personal hardship.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completing his
training for the purpose of election duty, he moved a representation before
respondent no. 2 to exempt him from the census duty, as he has to take care
of his wife, but nothing has been done till date, therefore, a direction may be
issued upon respondent no. 2 to consider and decide his representation
expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends 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.
5. Learned Standing counsel submits earlier with regard to appointment of
Booth Level Officers, that Election Commission of India has issued a
circular dated 05.06.2025 modifying its previous guidelines, which are as
follows:
WRIA No. 6894 of 2026
2
"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 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."
6. In 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.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the present case is a policy
matter and that no 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 in the case of
Dr. R.K. Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 658, in which
the Court has recognized the executive's discretion in policy matters.
8. In view of the above, no interference is called for.
9. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner moves a representation,
ventilating his grievances, before the authorities concerned, the same shall
be consider and decided, in accordance with the new modified guidelines, as
expeditiously as possible.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
May 7, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…