IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 86 of 2010 (S/S) Vidyadhar Joshi S/O Shri Khimanand Joshi and others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others. … Respondents. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date July 05, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the memo of writ petition, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- A. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order/letter dated 29-09-2009 issued by District Project Officer Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Champawat (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). B. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Government Order dated 14-02-2008 so far as it deprives Instructors/Acharyas like the present petitioners from being appointed/engaged as Shiksha Mitra after upgradation of their respective Upper Primary Education Guarantee Scheme (for short EGS) Centres (Annexure-6 to the petition). C. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the benefit of Government Orders dated 28-6-2006 read with G.O. dated 15-12- 2008 and 21-8-2007 to the petitioners by providing them appointment and salary of Shiksha Mitra. 2 D. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. E. Award cost of the petition to the present petitioners. The petitioners claim to have been appointed as Shiksha Acharya in different E.G.S. Centres by separate orders. The educational qualification of the petitioners is graduate or post graduate and the petitioners are fully eligible for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioners claim that by Government Order dated 28-6-2006, the Shiksha Acharya or Shiksha Anudeshak, who were working in a particular education guarantee center would be automatically deemed to have got the status of Shiksha Mitra on the center being upgraded to Primary School and would be paid honorarium @ Rs. 4000/- per month. The petitioners also claim that as per G.O. dated 15-12-2006, in the upgraded primary school, one of the post of Shiksha Mitra will be made available to the Shiksha Acharya/Anudeshak already working in the said Education Guarantee Centre. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not being given the benefit of Government Order dated 28-6- 2006 and 15-12-2006 as well as G.O. dated 21-8-2007 and they had neither been adjusted against the post of Shiksha Mitra nor they have been paid any salary after the up-gradation of the Education Guarantee Centre as Government Primary School, rather the services of the petitioners have been terminated by the respondents w.e.f. 31-12-2009. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed. Paragraph 3-B of the counter affidavit reads as under:- “B. That it is submitted that the petitioner was working in the Education Guarantee Scheme, E.G.S. Centre. As per the order dated 14-2-2008 the Primary School have been opened and the petitioners cannot be appointed as regular teacher in the said primary school. It is submitted that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis and as such, the services under the contract came 3 to an end after the opening of the school on 14-2-2008. There is no creation of any post of Shiksha Mitra, as such, the petitioner cannot be engaged as Shiksha Mitra also. The petitioners are not working as Shiksha Mitra/Shiksha Acharya and in District-Champawat, at present there is no post of Shiksha Mitra vacant. It is submitted that in the new school opened, the regular Assistant Teachers have been appointed on the basis of adjustment.” The contention of the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is that in view of Government Order dated 14-2-2008, no Shiksha Mitra can be appointed in the upgraded Junior High School. In the course of arguments, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State has submitted that similar controversy as involved in the present writ petition had arisen in Writ Petition No. 41 of 2010(S/S), Bala Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 2-6-2010 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the State has urged that his petition may be dismissed in terms of the order dated 2-6-2010. Admittedly the E.G.S. Centres in which the petitioners were working as Shiksha Acharya have already been upgraded to Primary Schools as per Government Order dated 4-11-2008 and at present the E.G.S. Centres are functioning as Junior High Schools and in district Champawat 30 post of Assistant Teachers were created against 15 new primary schools besides 45 post of Assistant Teachers against 15 Junior High Schools. I have perused the order dated 2-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 2010(S/S), Bala Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and it has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that once a school has been upgraded as a primary school, teachers are required to be appointed under the provisions of the Act. I am of the view that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost identical and the same stood resolved by the order dated 2-6-2010. 4 The writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 2-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 2010(S/S), Bala Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The interim order dated 17-2-2010 passed by this Court is vacated. It is made clear that for the period the petitioners had worked as Shiksha Acharya in pursuance of the interim order dated 17-2-2010 passed by this Court, the petitioners shall be entitled to get the honorarium. The respondents are directed to pay the honorarium for the period the petitioners had worked as Shiksha Acharya. However, the petitioners may make a representation to appropriate authority for their adjustment in other primary schools. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP