Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Written statement, on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5, filed in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Dr. V.K. Tiwari, Lecturer, DAV College, Jalandhar, who is also a member of the Punjab and Chandigarh College Teachers Union, for himself and on behalf of the said Union as General Secretary, alongwith Dr. Kulwant Singh, Lecturer, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order dated 15.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) issued by the District, Election Officer, Jalandhar, requiring the petitioners to be deployed for election duty in the District, as the Presiding Officers, be quashed and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the impugned order, Annexure P-2, in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. 3. It is not necessary for us to go into detailed facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition. Suffice it to note that the petitioners, who are employed as Lecturers in the College, which are non-government aided Colleges, are aggrieved against the action of the respondents on the ground that they are not such staff, who are working under the President or the Government and as such, their services could not be requisitioned by the State Election Commission for completion of the election process. In the alternative, it is contended that even if they could "be deputed for election duty, their seniority with respect to their status and pay scale should be determined and they would not be called upon to function under a junior officer. 4. Vide order dated 29,4.2004, this Court had called upon Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, appearing for the Election Commission, to seek instructions as well as issued notice to the State of Punjab. 5. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. State Bank of India. Patna and Ors., A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1078, contended that the petitioners not being the employees working under the President or the Governor, cannot be deployed for election duty as they do not fall within the expression such staff as appearing in Article 324(6) of the Constitution of India. This argument of the counsel for the petitioners loses its significance, in view of the amendment of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This argument of the counsel for the petitioners loses its significance, in view of the amendment of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Clause 4 to Sub-section (2) of Section 159 of the said Act was substituted by an amendment Act 12 of 1998 and the amended provisions reads as under:- "159(2) The following shall be the authorities for the purposes of Sub-section (1), namely:- (i) every local authority; (ii) every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act; (iii) a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; (iv) any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government." A plain reading of the above provision shows that any other institution, which is wholly or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the State or the Central Government, would be an institution, the employees of which could be deputed for election duty by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, in terms of the above provisions. In fact, quite fairly, learned counsel for the petitioners has not even pressed this contention thereafter. 6 Reverting to the second contention, raised on behalf of the petitioners, that even if the employees of such Colleges can be deployed for election duty, in terms of Article 324(6) of the Constitution of India read with Section 159 of the said Act, still their dignity to their status and assignment of responsibilities has to be maintained. 7. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the instructions, issued by the Election Commission of India in its hand book for Returning Officer, wherein under Chapter III relating to polling personnel under 2.7, it is postulated that the seniority of the official should be taken into account in every case and it should be ensured that a senior officer is not put on duty under an official who is junior to him/her. Learned counsel also makes a reference to Clause 3.1 of the same Chapter, where a Presiding Officer is required to be a gazetted Officer, as far as possible. 8. Learned counsel also makes a reference to Clause 3.1 of the same Chapter, where a Presiding Officer is required to be a gazetted Officer, as far as possible. 8. Certainly, the intent of the rule making authority in the above provisions, is to give due regard to the seniority, while fixing responsibility of the staff deployed in the election process. The expression seniority surely does not mean seniority simplicitor between the members of the cadres. A large number of government employees, employees from public sectors, local authorities and even from College etc. are deployed and deputed for performing election duty. It will be hardly practicable to maintain a strict concept of seniority in their deployment. However, in terms of the guidelines, issued by the Election Commission itself, sufficient indication is stipulated so as to protect due regard to the post and responsibility assigned to such persons. The concept of seniority, as understood in common parlance to the service law would not be strictly applicable but certainly status of the person, his pay scale and the class of service to which he belongs would be sufficient basis to determine seniority while assigning election duty to such person. It is not for us to pronounce in this regard but it is obligatory upon the Election Commission as well as the Electoral Officer of the State to ensure adherence to the guidelines, as far as possible and practicable. There can be a situation where a person, who might be receiving higher salary or even belongs to a higher status, has to be deployed per force of circumstances and in order to maintain the hierarchy, as postulated under the Electoral law intact, under a person, who may not be equivalent in any or otherwise to his status. A Deputy Commissioner of a District is a District Electoral Officer and obviously he is a gazetted Officer but still may be receiving less salary from a Lecturer or a Professor, who has been directed to work under him. This situation per se would not vitiate any basic rule of law or infringe the concept of seniority indicated in 2.7 of the aforesaid guidelines. The compliance to such guidelines would be more regulatory in nature than mandatory. This situation per se would not vitiate any basic rule of law or infringe the concept of seniority indicated in 2.7 of the aforesaid guidelines. The compliance to such guidelines would be more regulatory in nature than mandatory. Such compliance should be viewed with due regard to the, purpose for which they have been issued, to maintain the basic element of process of election to be free and fair. Even if the officers employed in different Undertakings or Departments have to work for a day in co-ordination or even under a person, who may otherwise be junior to them in terms of pay etc, and are assigned a definite job in the electoral process, then we are of the considered view that it would not infringe any known principles of service jurisprudence much less any fundamental right. In the circumstances, aforestated, we dispose of this writ petition, while observing that the Election Commission as well as the State Electoral Agencies would keep due regard to the guidelines and ensure compliance to the concept of seniority, as afore-indicated, as far as possible. No order as to costs.