IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 69 of 2011 Uttam Kumar Biswas and another ….…… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the appellant No. 1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondents. Date of Judgment: 27.04.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 2655 of 2011 The appeal is delayed by 230 days. The principal ground for delay is non-communication of the order by the learned counsel engaged by the petitioners before the writ Court. 2. That may be a reason, but cannot be treated to be a good reason, for the same suggests that the appellants did not feel it necessary to inquire from their counsel as to the state of their litigation for a period of 230 days, which is roughly about 8 months. However, appellant No. 1 has stated that during the relevant time he was also suffering from hepatitis. In those circumstances, we are allowing the application for condonation of delay, but with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited by the appellants within 15 days from today with the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. The order, allowing the application for condonation of delay, is subject to payment of such costs. Special Appeal No. 69 of 2011 In view of the decision of the Government dated 19th November, 2010, we admit the appeal. 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 4. It has been brought to our notice that the State Government has taken a decision on 19th November, 2010, whereby and under the State Government has proposed that a Shiksha Acharya, who is a graduate, would be made Shiksha Mitra. 5. There is no dispute that appellant No. 1 was Shiksha Acharya of the school, before the school was converted into a primary school. In the circumstances, taking note of the said Government decision dated 19th November, 2010, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal, and at the same time, dispose of the writ petition, in so far as appellant No. 1 is concerned, in as much as he became a graduate on or before 19th November, 2010, by directing the respondents to treat appellant No. 1 as Shiksha Mitra and thereupon to send him for training in terms of the Government decision dated 1st March, 2009 and thereafter, to utilize appellant No. 1 for the purpose of imparting education in schools, recognized by the Board, constituted by and under the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. 6. The appeal, in so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, is dismissed, in as much as he did not become a graduate on or before 19th November, 2010. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 27.04.2011 27.04.2011 Amit