HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14713 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shivendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4, Mr. Jitendra Ojha, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners who are 23 in numbers have approached this Court, challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, deputing the petitioners to perform duties as Booth Level Officer, who are working as Assistant Teachers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are teachers and, as per the earlier guidelines, considering the onerous duties of the teachers on account of their teaching assignments, they can be deployed for election duties only in case of non availability of other staff. The aforesaid has also been observed 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. 4. While elaborating and interpreting the guidelines, the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sandeep Shukla And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy.Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 6 Others, 2025;AHC:LKO:51753, has categorically observed that as per Clause 3.1 of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission, which have been reiterated in the guidelines dated 11.07.2025, the concerned authorities were directed to re-fix the deployment of teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in case other categories of staff, as mentioned in Clause 3.1 of the aforesaid guidelines are not available. It has further been clarified that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Sumati Rani Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jitendra Ojha, Kushmondeya Shahi, Shivendra Kumar Singh Gulab Singh And 22 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) teachers shall not be deployed on election duties or appointed as BLOs. She further submits that a direction has also been issued by the Court in the aforesaid judgement to carryout the exercise in view of the Clause 3.1 of the guidelines. However, the petitioners were directed to discharge the electoral duties as assigned to them till such exercise is completed. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing counsel submits that Election Commission of India has issued circular dated 05.06.2025 changing the guidelines, thus, the appointment of Booth Level Officer shall be in accordance with the aforesaid directions, in which the guidelines stand modified as follows:- "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 such 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 passed in the case of Dr. R.K. Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 658, in which the Court recognized the executive's discretion in policy matters. WRIA No. 14713 of 2025 2 8. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, it is provided that in case the petitioners move a representation, ventilating all their grievances, before the authorities concerned, within one week from today, the authorities concerned shall make all endeavors to consider and decide the same, in accordance with the new modified guidelines, within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Needless to say that while passing the order on the representation as filed by the petitioner, the observations made in the case of Dr. Sandeep Shukla (supra) may be taken into consideration. September 26, 2025 Rahul. WRIA No. 14713 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad