IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 615 of 2009 (S/S) Shanti Lal Son of Pushu Lal. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Education, Dehradun and others. … Respondents. Mr. K.N.Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date July 21, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary/honorarium to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra from the date the Education Guarantee Centre Ghansari, District Tehri Garhwal was upgraded to a Primary School. Prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefits of Government Orders dated 28-6-2006, 15-12-2006 and 21-8-2007 to the petitioner has also been made. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Shiksha Acharya/Shiksha Anudeshak under the Education Guarantee Programme in Education Guarantee Centre Suna, Block Jakhnidhar in the year 2004 as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the memo of writ petition. He also claims to be Intermediate and is fully eligible for absorption on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner also claims to be entitled to be adjusted against the post of Shiksha Mitra in the upgraded Primary School. The petitioner also claims that he is entitled to the benefit of G.O. dated 28-6-2006 and to get honorarium of Rs. 4000/- per month admissible to Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner also claims to have continuously 2 worked in the Primary School Sunali, Block Jakhnidhar, as Shiksha Mitra upto September, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that other similarly situated candidates were adjusted on the post of Shiksha Mitra by the Block Education Officer but the petitioner has not been adjusted till now. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed. The contention of the respondents is that after up- gradation of Education Guarantee Centre to a Primary School, no right accrues to the petitioner to continue as Shiksha Mitra because as per Government Order dated 14-2-2008, the eligibility qualification for appointment as Shiksha Mitra is graduation and the petitioner does not fulfill this eligibility. It has not been denied by the respondents that the other similarly situated candidates were adjusted against the post of Shiksha Mitra, while the petitioner had been left out, as alleged by the petitioner in paragraph no. 6, rather there is no reply on this point in the counter affidavit in paragraph no.6. In the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 2-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 2010(S/S), Bala Datt Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have pondered over the matter. I have also perused the order dated 2-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 2010(S/S), Bala Datt 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. 3 It is undisputed that the petitioner is continuing on the post of Shiksha Mitra in compliance of interim order dated 4-12- 2009 passed by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to work as Shiksha Mitra in the concerned primary school till a regular Assistant Teacher is appointed by the State Government in the school and the petitioner shall also be entitled to the honorarium as admissible to Shiksha Mitra as per Government Orders issued from time to time. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP