HIGH COURT OF UTTARNCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1969 (S/S) of 2005 Imran Ali S/o Abdul Gaffur, R/o Village Jassodupur, Post Sultanpur Block Bhadrabad, Tehsil and District Haridwar. ….Petitioner Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal through its Secretary a Basic Education, Subhash Road Dehradun District- Dehradun. 2. Director Sarva Shiksha Dehradun, District- Dehradun. 3. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Haridwar, District- Haridwar. ….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1888 (S/S) of 2005 Santosh Kumari W/o Virendra Kumar R/o Village and Shah Pur Sheela Khera Tehsil and District- Haridwar. .…. Petitioner Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal through its Secretary Basic Education, Subhash Road, Dehradun District-Dehradun. 2. Director Sarva Shiksha Dehradun, District- Dehradun. District- Haridwar. 3. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Haridwar, District Haridwar. ….. Respondents Sri Parikshit Saini learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Paresh Tripathi learned Standing counsel. Dated: - 22-12-2005 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Parikshit Saini learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi learned standing counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment or give preference to the petitioner in the appointment under “Shiksha Mitra Scheme” in the primary school at Village Jassodpur at Block Bhadrabad or in any other primary school of block Bhadrabad. Briefly stated according to the case of the petitioner permanent resident of Village Jassodupur and the petitioner is Domile of State of Uttaranchal, Block Bhadrabad, Tehsil and District- Haridwar and duly passed her Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1996, Intermediate in the year 2000 and Graduation in the year 2003 and Shiksha Visharad in the year 2003. The petitioner belongs to the other backward class in the year 1975 the then U.P. Government created a scheme named ‘Anopcharik Shiksha’. According to which instructor ‘Anudeshik’ will be appointed for every village Gram Sabha for giving basic education to those students of Rural Areas who cannot go to school for receiving Primary Education. The petitioner was appointed as ‘ Anudeshik’ on 25-6-1998 for the center at Village Jassodpur Block Bhadrabad District- Haridwar by the respondent No.3 who was, the project Director for Haridwar District. After the creation of State of Uttaranchal, the State of Uttaranchal abolished the ‘Anopcharik Shiksha’ and created a new scheme in the name of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan thereafter the State of Uttaranchal issued a scheme known ‘Shiksha Mitra’ in 2001, which was amended in 2004 and 2005. According to this scheme such candidates who possessed B.A. Degree and are the domicile of the State of Uttaranchal and also are residing in that Gram Sabha or Gram Panchayat or the Block will be given appointment under the said scheme. In the month of August 2005, the respondent No.2 published the advertisement in the newspaper for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra in District Haridwar. In pursuance of the advertisement published, the petitioner applied for the same on 22-8-2005 but the petitioner has not been considered. In a similar controversy, following direction has been given:- “;kphx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ fn;k gS fd ;kfpdkdrkvZ kas us foxr 10 o"kksaZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; rd vunq s’kd @ vuqnsf’kdk ds in ij dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj os 'k{S kf.kd l= 2001 rd dk;Z dj pdq s gAS o"kZ 2001 eas mRrjkpW y 'kklu }kjk vukSipkfjd f’k{kk ds LFkku ij loZf’k{kk vfHk;ku ds varxrZ 6 ls 14 o"kZ ds cPpksa dks f’kf{kr djus gsrq vizf’kf{kr f’k{kk fe=ksa dh lsok;sa yh gS ijUrq 'kklu us iwoZ ls gh dk;Zjr vuqns’kdksa dks oafpr fd;k gS ftUgsa fd foxr 10 o"kksaZ dk vuqHko gSA ls Hkh vf/kd f’k{k.k dk;Z mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa eas ;g U;k;ksfpr ,oa lehphu gksxk fd ;kphx.k viuh foxr lsok laca/kh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks bafxr djrs gq;s funs’kd] csfld f’k{kk mRrjkWpy 'kklu] nsgjknwu dks viuk la;qDr izR;kosnu ¼bl fu.kZ; dh lR;kfir izfrfyfi lfgr½ vkt dh frfFk ls 15 fnu ds varxZr izLrqr djsxa s vkSj funs’kd ls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd mDr izR;kosnu izkIr gksus ds ,d ekg ds Hkhrj] bl rF; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s fd ;kphx.k tks fd iwoZ ls gh ifz ’kf{kr gS vkjS ftUgksaus yEch vof/k rd vuqns’kdkas dks inksa in dk;Z fd;k gS] ;kphx.k ds izR;kosnu i= ij lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj djrs gq;sa izR;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k djsaxs vkSj 'kklu }kj vukSipkfjd f’k{kk ds LFkku ij loZf’k{kk vfHk;ku ds varxZr 6 ls 14 o"kZ ds cPPkksa dks f’kfa{kr djus gsrq vizf’kf{kr f’k{kk fe=ksa ds v/khu ;kphx.k ds vH;FkuZ lwfpr djsaxsA ij fopkj djxas s vkSj fy;s x;sa fu.k;Z ls ;kphx.k dks ;kfpdk mDr fun’s k ds lkFk vafre :Ik ls fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA vHk;i{k viuk*&viuk O;; Loa; ogu djsaxsA” Both the parties have submitted that the controversy raised by means of this writ petition has already been settled by this court vide judgment and order dated 14th September 2005 passed in writ petition No. 1678 (S/S) of 2003 Km. Seema Chamola and three others Vs. State of U.P and two others, and the present writ petition may be decided on the same terms and observations made in the aforesaid judgment. The representation filed by the petitioner in both the writ petitions shall be disposed of in term of the W.P. No. 1678(S/S) of 2003. Keeping in view, the above statement, writ petitions are finally disposed of on the same terms and conditions of the order passed by this court on 14th September 2005 in writ petition no. 1678(SS) of 2003 Km. Seema Chamola and three others Vs. State of U.P. and two others. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dated:- 22-12-2005 M.K.