IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 292 of 2011 Rai Singh Negi. ………. Appellant Versus Rajesh Chandra Pandey & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 10. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 11 & 12. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In a writ petition, filed by those who are undergoing training to become teachers, it was contended that people, who have not obtained such training, are being appointed on contractual basis as teachers in the schools established by the State in remote parts of the State. These appointments have been stayed until the writ petition is heard and decided. Against this order, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. We think, a question has arisen as to when, in exercise of legislative power covering a legislative field enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule, the Central Government has enacted an Act and, thereby, has constituted an authority vesting in it the power to recommend the courses of studies to be undertaken by a person to become competent to impart education, because in an Act made by the Central Government, in order to fulfill one of the fundamental rights of the people granted by the Constitution, has relaxed the eligibility of the teachers to be appointed to implement Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan; is it permissible for the State to appoint people, who are otherwise not competent in terms of the mandate given by the authority so constituted by the Central Government and, accordingly, can make a situation, where a part of the students would be educated by properly trained and qualified people and the other not by 2 properly trained and qualified people? We think that, until this issue is decided, it was appropriately held by the writ court that the decision of the Government to appoint such untrained people should remain stayed. 3. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal and request the writ court to hear the writ petition at an early date. In the event, parties to the writ petition have not filed appropriate pleadings, they are permitted to do so within two weeks from today. Let the writ petition be listed thereafter. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 21.12.2011 21.12.2011 G