IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No. 4211 of 2010 Interim Application No.5989 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.403 of 2010 (S/S) 1. Krishna Devi Chauhan, Aged About 28 years, W/o Sri Azab Singh, Presently functioning as Shiksha Mitra in Govt. Primary School Mothi, Block Chakrata District Dehradun. 2. Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Sri Ajit Singh, Presently functioning as Shiksha Mitra in Govt. Primary School Gadsar, Block Chakrata District Dehradun. 3. Smt. Sheela W/o Sri Ram Prasad Nautiyal @ Vijay, Presently functioning as Shiksha Mitra in Govt. Primary School Darmigad, Block Chakrata District Dehradun. ……Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, School Education, Dehradun. 2. The Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. The District Education Officer, Dehradun. 4. The District Institute of Education & Training, Dehradun Through its Principal. Mr.G.D.Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. Delay in filing counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is condoned. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs. 1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the District Education Officer, Dehradun and the consequential order dated 20.04.2010 issued by the Principal, DIET Dehradun (contained as Annexure 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition) 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to undergo the B.T.C. training at District Institute of Education & Training, Dehradun as per their selection, which was published in the newspaper dated 17.04.2010 and was also communicated individually vide letter dated 13.04.2010 of the Principal, D.I.E.T., Dehradun. 3. Issue an ad-interim mandamus to the said effect. 4. Issue any other/ further writ order or direction (s), which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner. It is stated in the Para No. 5 of the counter affidavit the same reads as under: - “ That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence, are denied, it is submitted that the petitioners had not taken or granted permission for appearing in the graduation degree examination as regular students as it reveals and apparent from the Annexure 3 to the writ petition that on the application of the petitioner Krishna Chauhan, she was granted permission on the condition that she would have taken casual leaves on the following mentioned dates of examination. On the application of petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi dated 14.03.2002, the Block Education Officer and Assistant Basic Education Officer, Chakrata had recommended the application of the petitioner to District Education Officer, Dehradun for 17 days leave for appearing in the examination. Similarly on the application of Smt. Sheela, the Assistant Basic Education Officer had recommended the application of the petitioner for appearing in the B.A. III year examination. Thus, the petitioners had neither sought permission for the concerned authorities for joining in the Graduation classes as regular students not they were given any such permission from the concerned authorities. Moreover, it is quite clear that a student can obtain a regular degree only when she or he admitted in the College as a regular student; while the petitioners had received the honorarium of Shiksha Mitra and at the same time/ period they were doing their studies in degree colleges as regular students, which is wholly irregular and illegal.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that they had appeared in the graduation examination after obtaining permission from the competent authority. The averment to this fact have been made in para No. 5 to the writ petition. The petitioners have granted permission with the condition that during the examination they have to take the casual leaves. The petitioners have applied for B.T.C training, the application was rejected by authority concerned therefore, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this court to the judgment passed in writ petition No. 270 of 2010 (M/s) “Smt. Seema Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others” wherein similar controversy was at hand decided by this court. Learned Brief Holder for the state has fairly conceded this fact that the petitioners have completed their graduation while they were working as shiksha mitra. The controversy in the said writ petition No. 270 of 2010 and in writ petition at hand are similar and the petitioners have completed their graduation during their working period as shiksha mitra. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 16.06.2010 passed in writ petition No. 270 of 2010(M/s) Smt. Seema Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for the B.T.C training course pursuant to the Government Order dated 1st March, 2009. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners graduation degree would be accepted by the respondents as a valid degree and if the petitioners possesses the necessary qualifications as per the Government Order dated 1st March, 2009, the respondents are directed to include their names in the B.T.C. course of two years. Necessary orders shall be passed by the respondents within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) 27-07-2010 JM