IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2222 OF 2009 (MS) Meena Rawat ………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …..Respondents. Present: Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 6. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 6. The petitioner is a “Gram Pradhan” of Village Panchayat “Chultad”, which is in Block Chakrata, district Dehradun. She has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent no. 6, who is a “Shiksha Mitra” in an Education Guarantee Scheme Centre at Village Chultad, which is in the same Gram Panchayat. The petitioner alleges that there are several allegations against respondent no. 6 and he cannot be a role model for the students, to whom he teaches and according to the petitioner, these allegations are serious in nature. “Gram Shiksha Samiti”, Chultad has also taken a decision on 1.4.2008 to remove respondent no. 6 as “Shiksha Samiti” but according to the petitioner due to inaction on the part of the respondents, nothing has happened so far. The State represented by Standing Counsel Sri N.P. Sah and respondent no. 6, who is represented by Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate on the other hand contends that on a complaint received by the authorities, an inquiry was conducted by the Chief Development Officer, who found the charges against respondent no. 6 as baseless, therefore, the writ petition has therefore no legs to stand and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner rebutting this reply has stated that the Chief Development Officer has not conducted any inquiry and the Chief Development Officer has taken into consideration the facts, which were not relevant for the purpose of inquiry and since there are allegations, which are serious in nature, it is necessary in the interest of justice that a fresh inquiry be made and in case the charges are found proved, proper action against respondent no. 6 be taken. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, this Court directs the District Education Officer, Dehradun to inquire into the matter and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 and any other person who he deems fit and proper, pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. This Court makes it clear that in case charges against respondent no. 6 are found to be true, then appropriate action be taken against respondent no. 6 in accordance with law. It is also made clear that no order terminating the appointment of respondent no. 6 as “Shiksha Mitra” has been passed, presently by this court. Respondent no. 6 shall continue as “Shiksha Mitra” but continuation of her service shall be subject to findings made by respondent no. 3. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.06.2011 Rathour