IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application 5513/2011 In Special Appeal No. 99 Of 2011 State of Uttarakhand & Others … Appellants Versus Krishna Devi Chauhan & Others … Respondents Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate, for the respondents. Date of order : 1.7.2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. (Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal. 3. The stand taken by the State that since the respondents-petitioners obtained graduation degree while they were discharging the duties and functions of ‘Shiksha Mitra’, without permission of the State, the respondents petitioners are not entitled to be sent for BTC Training for the purpose of engaging them in primary schools, resulted in filing of the writ petition. That has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal. 2 4. Learned Counsel for the State has not been able to produce any document, having statutory implication, suggesting that a ‘Shiksha Mitra’, in order to pursue higher studies, is required to obtain any permission of the State. That being the situation, there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order under appeal. 5. It was sought to be insinuated that while purporting to render services of ‘Shiksha Mitra’, respondents-petitioners could not pursue regular graduation course. The said insinuation has two parts; one is that the petitioners attended the regular course and, accordingly, did not attend to their duties of ‘Shiksha Mitra’, and the other that the petitioners, though enrolled themselves in regular course, did not attend class. These are factual matters, should have been highlighted appropriately for the purpose of obtaining adjudication thereon. That having not been done, we are of the view that the appeal is meritless, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 1.7.2011 1.7.2011 Prabodh