HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14925 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioners, who are fifty in number, have preferred instant writ petition restraining the respondent no. 3 - District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, from taking work of Booth Level Officer from the petitioners. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that for ventilation of their grievances, the petitioners have moved representations before the concerned authority to consider the placement of petitioners as BLO in accordance with the settled position of law as laid down in the case of Surya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-A No. 16401 of 2024, decided on 11.02.2025, as well as the modified guidelines framed by the Election Commission of India, however, same have failed to elicit any response. The modified guidelines are thus: "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." 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Singh, Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akanksha Sharma, C.S.C., Tarun Agrawal Ramesh Singh And 49 Others .....Petitioner(s) Assistant Electoral Registration Officer And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) for the State, Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 4, and Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent authority may be directed to consider the petitioners' grievance in view of the settled law in Surya Pratap Singh (supra) and the modified guidelines, enumerated above. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent BSA does not dispute the prayer being sought for by the petitioners. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that ends of justice would be met by issuance of a direction upon the concerned respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' grievance in accordance with the judgement in Surya Pratap Singh (supra) and the modified guidelines, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. No order as to costs. October 6, 2025 DS WRIA No. 14925 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad