Smt. Meena Basera vs State of Uttarakhand

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner sought the following relief:

I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the benefit of Government Orders dated 28-06-2006 read with G.O. dated 15-12-2006 and 21-8-2007 to the petitioner by providing her appointment and salary of Shiksha Mitra since 21-09-2007 when the Education Guarantee Scheme Centre was upgraded.

II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner and permit her to teach continuously.

III. Any other order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

IV. Award cost of the petition to the present petitioner.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner''s name was recommended for being appointed as Shiksha Acharya in the EGS Centre to the respondent No. 3 by letter dated 26-1-2006 and she was thereafter appointed as Shiksha Acharya by President, Yuvak Mangal Dal Rajeev Nagar, Bindukhatta. The petitioner claims to have been working as Shiksha Acharya/Shiksha Mitra in the Government Primary School Shri Lanka Tapu, Village Khuriya Khatta Bindu Khatta, Block Lalkuan, District Nainital.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is that she is not being given the benefit of Government Order dated 28-6-2006 read with G.O. Dated 15-12-2006 and 21-8-2007 and she is entitled to complete her graduation within a period of three years.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The main objection raised in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit for want of fulfillment of educational qualification in view of Government Order dated 14-2-2008. It is also stated in paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit that after upgradation of the Education Guarantee Centre to Primary School, the petitioner is not working either as Shiksha Acharya/Anudeshak or as Shiksha Mitra.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that by G.O. dated 21-8-2007, directions were given by the government to regularize the Shiksha Acharya/Shiksha Anudeshak working in the upgraded Education Guarantee Centre in the Primary Schools as Shiksha Mitra and the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the said Government Order.

In the course of arguments, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State has submitted that Writ Petition No. 174 of 2009(S/S) filed by one Smt. Jawa Devi, involving similar controversy as that of the present writ petition, has already been dismissed by this Court by order dated 5-7-2010 itself.

Be that as it may. It is not disputed that in view of the Government Order dated 14-2-2008 the earlier Government Orders were superseded and the qualification and it was required that the candidate who was working as Shiksha Acharya or instructor (Shiksha Anudeshak) should possess the requisite qualification i.e. graduation degree for being appointed Shiksha Mitra. In the earlier Government Order-dated 15-5-2006, it was provided that the Shiksha Acharya and Shiksha Anudeshak, who do not possess graduation degree shall have to obtain the same within a period of two years. Subsequently by Government Order dated 28-6-2006, the period for obtaining the graduation decree was extended upto three years instead of two years. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having graduation degree as per Government Order dated 14-2-2008.

In the above facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioner was not having the eligibility qualification i.e. graduation degree on the relevant date as per Government Order dated 14-2-2008. Therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed against the petitioner thereby on the ground of non-fulfillment of educational qualification. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 21-1-2010 passed by this Court is vacated. It is made clear that for the period the petitioner had worked as Shiksha Mitra in pursuance of the interim order dated 21-1-2010 passed by this Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the honorarium. The respondents are directed to pay the honorarium for the period the petitioner had worked as Shiksha Mitra.