IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 258 of 2009 (S/S) Smt. Sangita Devi Wife of Vijay Singh Bhandari. …… 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 and 15-12-2006 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 Ghansari as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the memo of writ petition. She also claims to be Intermediate and is fully eligible for absorption on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner also claims to have obtained training as required for the post of Shiksha Mitra . The petitioner also claims that she 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 2 continuously worked in the Primary School Ghansari as Shiksha Mitra from September 2007 to July 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra against the Government Orders on the pretext that she has not completed graduation. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated that as per direction of the State Project Officer, no Shiksha Mitra has to be appointed in the upgraded Education Guarantee Centres and the agreement executed by the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled by the District Project Officer by his order dated 18-2-2008. It is admitted in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given honorarium as Shiksha Acharya for the period September 2007 to March 2008. 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. The Petitioner has filed letter dated 25-9-2007 of the District Project Officer (S.S.A.)/Additional District Education Officer (Basic) Tehri Garhwal written to the Village Education Committee Ghansari (Annexure-5 to the petition) informing that the E.G.S. Centre Ghansari was upgraded to Primary School and the contract of Shiksha Acharya working in the said center shall be processed as Shiksha Mitra. In this view of the matter it must be taken that the petitioner had worked in the capacity of Shiksha Mitra soon after the up-gradation of the E.G.S. Centre to a Primary School in the month of September 2007. 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. 3 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. It is undisputed that the petitioner is continuing on the post of Shiksha Mitra in compliance of interim order dated 29-4- 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