IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2011 (S/S) Khalid Khan …..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was admittedly a “Shiksha Mitra”. Since the petitioner was not being sent for B.T.C. Training, he constrained to file this writ petition with the following prayer: “1- a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9-9- 2010 (contained in Annexure No. 7) to this writ petition. 2- a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner for to complete the B.T.C. training course in pursuant to the letter dated 11-4-2010. 3- any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4- award cost of the petition to the petitioners.” The objection of the State in not imparting B.T.C. training to the petitioners is that admittedly it is one of the essential conditions for undergoing BTC training that the “Shiksha Mitra” should be graduate. The petitioner has obtained the graduation degree while discharging duties of a “Shiksha Mitra”, hence he is not liable to be sent for B.T.C. training. The petitioner though relies upon an order dated 16.6.2010 passed by a learned Single 2 Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 270 of 2010 (S/S), where in similar circumstances, writ petition of the similarly situated persons was allowed and directions were given to the State to include their names in the B.T.C. training course of two years and to pass necessary orders within two weeks. Against this order, the State went in special appeal being Special Appeal No. 99 of 2011 (State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Kirshna Devi Chauhan and others) which was also dismissed on 1.7.2011. The ground for dismissing the Special Appeal as well as for allowing the writ petition was that the State has not been able to show any provision of law, which requires a “Shiksha Mitra” to obtain permission before he can undergo the graduation course or examination. That being the position of law, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court has held that there is no requirement of law for a “Shiksha Mitra” to obtain prior permission before undergoing the graduation course. Hence, the facts of the present case being similar, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner’s graduation degree would be accepted by the respondents as a valid graduation degree and as the petitioner possesses the necessarily qualifications as per the Government Order dated 1st March, 2009, the respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the B.T.C. training of two years. Necessary orders shall be passed by the respondents within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.8.2011 Rathour