HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9713 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Harsh Shri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of UP, and Shri Sarvesh Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3- Director General, School Shiksha Evam Rajya Pariyojana Nirdeshak, Karyalaya Samagra Shiksha, Vidya Bhavan, Nishadganj and Director, State Project, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Vidya Bhavan, Nishatganj, Lucknow. 2. By means of the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 17/9/2025 passed by the opposite party No. 3, whereby the conditions of the memorandum of understanding (MOU), dated 6 June 2025, entered into between the Government of Uttar Pradesh, acting through State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Uttar Pradesh, and Director Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, on one part, and the petitioners on the other part, have been modified so as to remove the condition regarding inclusion of scout and guide in the activity details mentioned in the memorandum of understanding, which are as follows: "To provide Scout and Guide, Prevention and Protection for Fire Training and Awareness program to Students- • To provide Scout and Guide, Prevention and Protection for Fire • Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Singh, Animesh Bajpai, Jitendra Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Sadguru Educational Society Thru. Secretary/Manager,Rama Shankar Shukla And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha , Shikasha Anubhag-5 Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Training and Awareness program to BTC Trainees Students- To adopt Three schools in selected 15 Districts (45 numbers)." • 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that no financial implications are involved in the memorandum of understanding, and the impugned order does not cause any legal prejudice to the petitioners, as it does not take away any of the petitioners' rights. The second submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the memorandum of understanding contains an Arbitration clause, and the petitioners can seek redressal of his grievance(s), if any, through the process of arbitration. 4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the writ petition and seeks liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of arbitration. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. October 13, 2025 A.Nigam WRIC No. 9713 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench