Ethics · 26 Jul 2026

BLO deployment voluntary mandatory Delhi HC

Consider the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R): Assertion (A): The Delhi High Court questioned the Election Commission's characterisation of teacher deployment as Booth Level Officers as "voluntary." Reason (R): Under Section 27 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, teachers cannot be deployed for any non-educational work, including election duty, without an explicit exemption.

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests precise knowledge of a statutory provision's actual exceptions versus a plausible-sounding but incorrect restatement of it, requiring careful legal reading rather than general familiarity with the RTE Act.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: When "Voluntary" Duty Kills: The Delhi HC's Question to the Election Commission
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 26 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Delhi HC questioned the EC's authority to mandatorily deploy teachers as BLOs after MCD teacher Suman Lata died of a stress-related heart attack, asking the EC to clarify by July 28 whether the deployment is genuinely voluntary.

Why for UPSC

This tests precise knowledge of Section 27 RTE Act's actual exceptions (census, disaster relief, election duty are permitted, not barred) - a frequently misread provision, since aspirants often assume it is an absolute bar rather than a bar with named exceptions.

Prelims summary

Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009 bars deploying teachers for non-educational work EXCEPT for census, disaster relief and election duty - meaning election duty is a named, permitted exception, not something requiring a separate explicit exemption.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.