IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 440 of 2008 (S/S) Raghu Lal S/o Chataru Lal R/o Village Aali P.O. Aali (Pokhari) District Chamoli. ….…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Education Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2. Director School Education Uttarakhand, Dehradun, Mayur Vihar Sahstradhara Road, Dehradun. 3. Additional District Education Officer (Basic) District-Chamoli. 4. Block Education Officer, Pokhari District-Chamoli. ……….Respondents. Shri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate present for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay honorarium to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School Aali, Block Pokhari, District Chamoli, pursuant to his appointment dated 17.03.2006 on said post. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a member of Schedule Caste, and resident of Gram Sabha Aali, Block Pokhari, District Chamoli, is a handicapped person. It is pleaded by him that primary school within the limit of Gram Sabha Aali, was reserved for Schedule Caste handicapped person. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that earlier one Harshwati Chauhan was working as Shiksha Mitra, who resigned from the post and the post fell vacant in the year 2005. In the writ petition it is further stated that since the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions for the post, advertised in the year 2005, he was appointed as Shiksha Mitra. However, no honorarium is paid to him. Hence this writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that neither there was any post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Aali nor was it reserved for Schedule Caste (handicapped person), nor the petitioner is appointed by a competent authority as Shiksha Mitra. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s case is not similar to the 11 Shiksha Mitra with reference 3 tom whom he is seeking parity as they were duly selected Shiksha Mitras unlike the petitioner. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, in the year 2001, the Primary School, Aali, was earmarked for Shiksha Mitra, and one Harshwati Chauhan was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in said school. It is also not disputed that she resigned from the service. Dispute relates to the fact whether in the year 2005, post of Shiksha Mitra, which is extended only from year to year, was ever extended after 2005 or not. The advertisement, copy of which is annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit, relating to Shiksha Mitra in Primary School of Block Pokhari, District Chamoli, does not show any school “Aali” as the one for which appointments were made as Shiksha Mitra. This advertisement relates to the year 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the school at serial No. 11, which is mentioned as Primary School, Kandai, is in fact Primary School, Kandai Aali. I have carefully gone through said advertisement. There is no mention of Aali with Kandai at serial No. 11. Apart from this, post of Shiksha Mitra in Kandai was reserved for Women General (not Schedule Caste Handicap). 4 7. Respondents have taken specific plea in the counter affidavit that Deputy Block Education Officer was not a competent authority to issue appointment letter appointing a Shiksha Mitra. Copy of letter dated 02.01.2007, issued by Additional District Education Officer (Basic) Chamoli, copy of which is annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter affidavit, shows that said Officer had called explanation as to how the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra without any authority. Perusal of the letter dated 27.11.2006, issued by Director of School Education to the District Education Officer, copy of which is annexure-9 to the writ petition itself shows that the Director of School Education has observed that there had been illegalities and irregularities, committed by Deputy Block Education Officer in appointing Shiksha Mitra, which came to the light after the enquiry made by the District Education Officer, Chamoli. It has been further directed by the Director, School Education in said letter that a charge sheet be prepared against the Deputy Block Education Officer. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner that he be paid honorarium after he is appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School, Aali, by Deputy Block Education Officer, Pokhari. 5 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 11 other Shiksha Mitra were issued certificates that they have in pursuance to the appointments, made by the same Deputy Education Officer taught as Shiksha Mitra in their respective schools. In the opinion of this Court, parity can be claimed in respect of lawful acts, and not in respect of an unlawful acts. Otherwise also, counter affidavit shows that the persons, who are said to be similarly, situated by the petitioner, were in fact duly selected candidates. 9. For the reasons, as discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief applications No. 3486 of 2008 and 10832 of 2009, also stand dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:14.12.2009 Sweta 6 7 8 9 10 11 12