IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 313 (SS) of 2008 Jaspal Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari order/letter No. 134-36/Shiksha Mitra/ 2008-09 dated 22.04.2008 passed by the Khand Shiksha Adhikari (Annexure No. 1) and the official letter No. 315/XXIV (1)/2008-13/2008, Dehradun dated 19.03.2008 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Shiksha Mitra in upgraded Govt. Primary School Khamaria (Bangali Colony), & Govt. Primary School Samlatta respectively. (iii) Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioners.” Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Acharya on 02.03.2004. The petitioners were appointed in Shiksha Guarantee Center of District Udham Singh Nagar. Due to 2 upgradation of Shiksha Guarantee Centre, the services of the petitioners were terminated with effect from 28.06.2005. Thereafter the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1752(SS) of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 1753 (SS) of 2005, in which identical order was passed and the same being quoted below:- “In view of the Government Order dated 17th of May 2006, mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall made a representation, within fifteen days from today, to the authorities concerned, who shall consider his representation within a period of one month thereafter, in the light of Govt. Order No. 433/XXIV(1)/2006-16/2004 dated 17th May 2006, for his appointment of the post of Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School Khamriya Block Sitarganj Distt. Udham Singh Nagar.” “In view of the Government Order dated 17th of May 2006, mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of within the direction that the petitioner shall made a representation, within fifteen days from today, to the authorities concerned, who shall consider his representation within a period of one month thereafter, in the light of Govt. Order No. 433/XXIV(1)/2006-16/2004 dated 17th May 2006, for his appointment of the postof Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School Salmatta, Block Sitarganj, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar.” Thereafter the petitioners were re-engaged by the respondents on 13.03.2008. But subsequently the Secretary School Education, Dehradun passed an order dated 19.03.2008 and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Order passed by the Secretary Education, Uttarakhand is being quoted below:- “;kph Jh lqjthr flag ,oa Jh tliky flag dh f’k{kk vkpk;Z ds #i esa lsok lekfIr ¼fnukad 3 28.06.2005½ rc dh x;h tc mDr ;kphx.kksa ds f’k{kk xkjaVh dsUnzksa dk izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa ds #i esa mzPphdj.k gks x;k] pwafd fnukad 28.06.2005 dks f’k{kk vkpk;kZs dks f’k{kk fe= ds #i esa lek;ksftr fd;s tkus dh dksbZ O;oLFkk fo|eku ugha FkhA D;ksfd lHkh 'kklukns’k fnukad 28 twu] 2005 ds mijkUr gh fuxZr fd;s x;s gS] ftuls ;kphx.kksa dk izdj.k vPNkfnr ugha gksrk gSA vr% Jh lqjthr flag ,oa Jh tliky flag dks f’k{kk fe= ds #i esa fu;ekuqlkj lek;ksftr fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA rnuqlkj izR;kosnu fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA” The Law Officer School Education, Uttarakhand vide letter dated April 3, 2008 communicated the petitioners about the order dated 19.03.2008 and these two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. Order-dated 19.03.2008 and 03.04.2008 were stayed by this Court on 29.04.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that while passing of the order the respondent no. 1 did not apply his mind properly in considering the contents of the Govt. Order dated 17.05.2006 and as such, the order dated 19.03.2008 deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the copy of the Government Order dated 15.12.2006 and submitted that his case is covered under the Government Order dated 15th December 2006 in which it was provided that where Education Guarantee Center/Optional Educational Center are upgraded, one Shiksha Mitra shall be posted against the two posts of teachers. He argued that in view of the Government Order dated 15.12.2006 the petitioners are entitled to continue against one post of Assistant Teacher. Relevant part of the Government Order is quoted below:- “ysfdu 'kklu ds laKku esa vk;k gS fd xkjUVh dsUnz@oSdfYid f’k{kk ds nks inks ds fu;fer izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa mPphsd`r gks tkus ds QyLo#i f’k{kk vkpk;Z dks gVk;s tkus dh fLFfr mRiUu gks x;h gSaA vr% bl laca/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fd;k x;k gS fd tks f’k{kk xkj.Vh dsUnz@ oSdfYid f’k{kk dsUnz] izkFkfed 4 fo|ky;ksa esa mPphd`r gks x;s gS ,sls fo|ky;ksa esa nks fu;fer f’k{kdksa ds inks esa ls ,d in ij fu;fer f’k{kd dh rSukrh dh tk; vkSj nwljs fu;fer f’k{kd ds in ij iwoZ esa lapkfyr f’k{kk vkpk;Z f’k{kk fe= ds #i esa rSukr fd;k tk;A 'kklukns’k la0 500@XXIV(1)/2006- 16/2004 fnukad 28.06.2006 ds izLrj&2 dh fLFkfr ;Fkkor jgsxhaA rRdky vko’;d vxzksRrj dk;Zokgh djuk lqfuf’pr djsA” Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, on the other hand, submitted that in view of subsequent Government Order dated 14.02.2008 the earlier Government Order was amended and it was provided that such Acharyas who are working in the Educational Guarantee Center and possesses the minimum requisite qualification and were selected by the Gram Shiksha Samiti in accordance with law be posted as Shiksha Mitra. He further submitted that at the time of issuance of government order dated 15.12.2006 the petitioners were not in service and they were terminated on 28.06.2005, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 15.12.2006. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand states that the government has taken a decision to fill up the posts of upgraded center by regularly selected candidates and therefore, the petitioners do not have any right to continue on the said posts. Since the petitioners’ services were already terminated on 28.06.2005, the petitioners were rightly denied the benefit of Government Order dated 17.05.2006. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of Government Order dated 17.05.2006 and the claim of the petitioners were rightly rejected by the respondent no. 1. However, keeping in mind the interest of the students, it is provided that the petitioners shall be permitted to continue on the post of Shiksha Acharya till regular selection is 5 made and regularly selected candidate joins the post. The petitioners shall be paid honorarium for the period they have worked. The writ petition is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) VKG 20.07.2009