Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41596 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7795 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikas Kumar Maurya And 86 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. To Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Deepak Singh,Nikhil Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Singh Vishen,Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sahrash Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1, Sri O.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Singh Vishen & Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided. Under challenge is the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the respondents no. 3 & 4 whereby the salary of the petitioners for the months of June, 2025 have been withheld. Also under challenge is the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the respondents no. 3 & 4, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition whereby the petitioners have been asked to report for training and have been indicated as Booth Level Officer. At the very outset, Sri O.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate states that the order dated 26.06.2025 has been withdrawn and the salary of the petitioners have also been directed to be paid. The aforesaid statement is recorded. So far as the order dated 21.06.2025 is concerned, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher consequently, they do not fall within the ambit of the commission's guidelines dated 05.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition inasmuch as Clause 1.1 of the guidelines pertains to those persons to be appointed as Booth Level Officer who are regular serving employees of State/local government enrolled as elector in that part; Clause 1.2 pertains to those to be appointed in the absence of the persons in Clause 1.1 after the Chief Executive Officer obtain non-availability certificate; Clause 1.3 would be applicable in the absence of any employee of categories mentioned in Clause 1.1 & 1.2 and Clause 1.4 would be applicable in any other case for which prior approval from the Commission is mandatory. Contention is that once the petitioners who are Assistant Teachers and as per specific averment made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition do not fall within the ambit of anyone of clauses as indicated above consequently, assignment of duty as Booth Level Officer is patently misconceived. On the other hand, Sri O.P.Srivastava, leaned Senior Advocate has supported the assignment of duty vide order dated 21.06.2025 on the basis of the guidelines dated 05.06.2025 by contending that the duties have only been assigned strictly in accordance with the circular dated 05.06.2025. It is also contended that in case the petitioners have any grievance in the assignment of their duties, it will always be open for them to submit their individual representation aggrieved by the assignment of duties which would be considered in accordance with law and in case there is any impediment as emerges from a perusal of the guidelines dated 05.06.2025, the same would obviously act upon. Considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to submit an individual representation to the competent authority who is said to be the respondents no. 3 or 4 so far as it pertains to the individual petitioners indicating their grievance and also indicating as to why they would not be covered by the guidelines dated 05.06.2025. In case, an individual representation is preferred then the competent authority shall proceed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and the relevant guidelines and taken a decision upon the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with the certified copy of this order. It would also be open for the petitioners to indicate the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 16401 of 2024 Inre; Surya Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors- 2025:AHC:19804 which would also be considered by the competent authority. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench