IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1195 of 2009 Rajan Lal ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner who was working as a “Siksha Acharya” in Education Guarantee Scheme Centre, Mandiya, Village Panchayat Gundyat Gaon was appointed in the year 2003 and since then was regularly working as such. The petitioner relies on a Government Order dated 14.2.2008 which says that once an Education Guarantee Centre is upgraded into a primary school then such instructors, as the present petitioner, who have education qualification for appointment as “Shiksha Mitra” and whose initial appointment has been recommended by “Village Shiksha Samiti” will be appointed as “Shiksha Mitra”. All the same, respondent no. 3 which is District Project Officer is not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as “Shiksha Mitra” and to pay the salary/honorarium to the petitioner. The main reliance the petitioner has placed is on a Government Order dated 14.2.2008. As per the said Government order once an Education Guarantee Scheme Centre is upgraded to a primary school, then such “Acharyas” and instructors who are imparting education at such centres and who have minimum education qualifications for appointment to the post of “Shiksha Mitra” and whose 2 appointment is recommended by “Village Shiksha Samiti” in accordance with law shall be appointed as “Shiksha Mitra”. In its counter affidavit the contention of the State is that once an Education Guarantee Scheme Centre is upgraded to a primary school and regular teachers have been appointed on these posts by way of transfer or by fresh appointment, the candidature of petitioner cannot be considered as “Siksha Mitra” as there is no post of “Shiksha Mitra” in the school. This argument of the State appears to be misconceived inasmuch as the State has not denied the existence of Government Order dated 14.2.2008. The Government Order dated 14.2.2008 clearly stipulates that once an Education Guarantee Scheme Centre is upgraded to a primary school then such instructors, as the petitioner, who have minimum qualification of “Shiksha Mitra” and whose candidatures are recommended by “Village Shiksha Samiti” will be appointed as “Shiksha Mitra”. In such similar matters a Division Bench of this Court has already directed that such “Siksha Acharyas” who were graduates as on 19.11.2010 shall be made “Siksha Mitras”. Therefore, in view of the judgment dated 23.2.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 131 of 2010 (Bala Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), this Court also directs respondent no. 2 which is Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to appoint the petitioner as “Shiksha Mitra” forthwith in accordance with Government Order dated 14.2.2008, subject to his fulfilling the conditions of Government order dated 14.2.2008. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 2.8.2011 Avneet