HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 232 (SS) of 2011 Smt. Chandramani. …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Shri Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Anil K. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Dated: April 18, 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the Institution run by the State Government. 3. It is averred in the petition that in the year 1993, the petitioner was engaged in the project as Instructor in the Non-formal Education Programme at Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and worked as such till the scheme came to an end in the year, 2001. In the year, 1999 when there accrued acute shortage of teachers in the primary schools, the Director Adult and Non-formal Education U.P. on 04.01.1999 passed an order directing all the District non-formal Education Officer/District Basic Education Officers, U.P. to take work from the Instructors engaged under the Non-formal Education Programme till the regular arrangement is made. It is further averred that the Adult Education/Non-formal Education Scheme was introduced by Govt. of India through state/district level and after abolition of the Scheme in various states, the persons engaged under said Scheme have been engaged in 2 the services under the State, as such the State of Uttarakhand is also under the obligation to absorb the persons engaged in the said Scheme under the services of the State. So far as the State of U.P. is concerned, various writ petitions were filed before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High court and the said Court vide order dated 17.08.1999, while disposing of one of such writ petitions, directed to consider the employees working in Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme first for appointment in the schemes of Shiksha Mitra and Acharya. Since the order dated 17.08.1999 passed by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court is prior to the creation of State of Uttarakhand, as such, the same is binding upon the State of Uttarakhand. In this regard, the petitioner made various representations to the respondents, but the same turned futile. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that seeking similar directions several persons, who were also working as an Instructors under such Scheme, filed writ petition No. 1522 (S/S)2003 ‘Prahlad Singh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others’ before this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.05.2006 directed that while making appointment on the posts of Shiksha Mitra/ Shiksha Bandhu, the Government will also consider the petitioners’ case, if they are otherwise eligible to be appointed as such. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the contentions made by the petitioner and in the identical circumstances, instant petition may also be disposed of in the same terms and observations made in the above writ petition. At this, learned Standing Counsel for the State does not raise any objection in issuing such direction. 3 6. The prayer being innocuous, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra/Shiksha Bandhu, if she is otherwise eligible to be appointed as such, in pursuance of the letter dated 06.10.2010 of respondent no.3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. The interim relief application (CLMA No. 1983/ 2011) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 18.04.2011 NCM: