IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 264 of 2011 Smt. Neetu Sharma and others …………… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .….............. Respondents Present: Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date: 22nd November, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) (Delay Condonation Application No. 12129 of 2011) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not object to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal being allowed, inasmuch as, delay is of only 15 days. We have also considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. (Special Appeal No. 264 of 2011) Appellants are not graduates but are working as Shiksha Mitras in Primary Schools. The National Council for Teacher Education has prescribed Higher Secondary i.e. + 2 as the basic qualification for enrolling to obtain Diploma in Elementary Education. Many Primary Schools have been upgraded by the Government into Elementary Schools. In relation to those upgraded Elementary Schools, the Government has taken a policy decision that graduate Shiksha Mitras working in the Primary Schools, which have been upgraded, will be sponsored by the Government to obtain Diploma in Elementary Education, inasmuch as, Diploma in 2 Elementary Education is one of the basic requirements for teachers to impart education at the relevant level. 2. In order to obtain sponsorship of the State for acquiring Diploma in Elementary Education, appellants filed a writ petition. In the writ petition, it was contended that since the qualification that the appellants have, i.e. Higher Secondary/+ 2 and that being the minimum qualification, as prescribed by National Council for Teacher Education, there is no just reason for the State not to sponsor the appellants to obtain Diploma in Elementary Education. 3. The writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. 4. The fact remains that the appellants are still working in Primary Schools and those have not yet been upgraded. Therefore, the policy of the State sponsoring Shiksha Mitras to obtain Diploma in Elementary Education does not apply to the case of the appellants. Secondly, if the Government decides that the elementary education shall be imparted by those, who are graduates in addition to having diploma in elementary education, the same can not be called in question on the basis of the decision of NCTE that the minimum qualification required for obtaining Diploma in Elementary Education is, Higher Secondary/+ 2. It is well settled in law that it is the employer alone and no one else who can decide what would be the minimum qualification required for an appointment to be given by the employer to a prospective employee. 5. For the reasons as above, we dismiss the appeal and while doing so, also dismiss the writ petition. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.11.2011 22.11.2011 P. Singh