IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL Writ Petition No. 1325 (SS) of 2011 Smt. Neetu Sharma and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The State Government has floated a scheme to send those “Shiksha Mitras”, who are graduates, for two years Diploma in Elementary Education (D.L.Ed.) so that they may teach in elementary school. The petitioners before this Court are not graduates. Therefore, they are not covered under the said scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are qualified as per the norms of NCTE. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is frivolous as under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right to Education Act, it is not just a fundamental right of children to get elementary education but this right has now become a meaningful right for various reasons and more particularly because a children will be imparted elementary education by qualified and trained teachers, which has already been stated by this Court in writ petition no. 772 (SS) of 2011 Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, as under: “We have already noticed in detail the object of the Act, which is, inter alia, to improve the standard of elementary education in our country. The Act strives to give to our children an elementary education through better trained and better qualified 2 teachers. If the Act and the subsequent notification issued by the NCTE raises the scale for these teachers, such an effort is in public interest and not against it. Moreover, such an action on the part of either NCTE or the State Government does not violate or invade any right of the petitioners, much less any fundamental or constitutional right. Moreover, the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, to which we shall refer in some detail later in this judgment, has already upheld the validity of the test i.e. TET. This Court is in full agreement with the views expressed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in this regard. Moreover, the conditions and eligibility, etc. for such teachers are being given under a Central statute, which is under Entry 66 of List I of the Union List of Seventh Schedule, the same will have an overriding effect, over any State legislation. No interference therefore can be made regarding this prayer of the petitioner and it stands rejected. The argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the State Government has prescribed a particular qualifications for teachers in elementary schools, under a particular scheme then no interference on this is liable to be made, firstly because it is matter of policy and secondly presently nothing has been shown by the petitioner which may show that such a qualification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 29.09.2011 VKG