Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 353 (UTT)

BALA DATT SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2010-06-02

TARUN AGARWALA

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard Shri Manoj Tiwai, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Shri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents-State. 2. This matter has been listed today for disposal of Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2910 of 2010, 2911 of 2010, 3442 of 2010 and 3443 of 2010 including the application for modification of an interim order passed by the Court. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, instead of deciding the miscellaneous applications, the writ petition is being decided finally since affidavits have already been exchanged. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Anudeshak in the year 2006 and started working in the Education Guarantee Centre at village Narayanpur Khatta (Forest Area Ramnagar) and has been working continuously since then. For the session 2008-09, this Education Guarantee Centre was upgraded as a primary school by a Government Order dated 15th May, 2006 and it was directed that wherever Shiksha Anudeshaks were working in the Education Guarantee Centre which was upgraded to a primary school, these Shiksha Anudeshaks would be deemed to hold the post of Shiksha Mitra and would be paid the honorarium @ 4,000/- p.m. It was further stated in the Government Order that in the event the Shiksha Anudeshak did not had the requisite education qualification for the post of Shiksha Mitra, he was required to get the requisite qualification within two years. This Government Order dated 15th May, 2006 was superceded by a Government Order dated 28th June, 2006 and the entire direction as contained in the Government Order on 15th May, 2006 was repeated verbatim with the modification that the requisite qualification of Shiksha Mitra should be obtained within three years instead of two years. Similar orders were subsequently issued by the Government Orders dated 15/12/2006 and 14th February, 2008. 4. The petitioner contends that based on the aforesaid Government Orders, the petitioner worked as a Shiksha Mitra but was not given the honorarium of a Shiksha Mitra and, subsequently, by the impugned order dated 25th July, 2009, the services of the petitioner was dispensed with on the ground that there was no requirement of a Shiksha Mitra and that Shiksha Anudeshak would at best be given the honorarium for the period of six months from the date of the up-gradation. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 25th July, 2009 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School Narayanpur Khatt (Forest Area Ramnagar, Distrcit Nainital and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of honorarium on the post of Shiksha Mitra from March, 2008 onwards. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating that by the Government Order dated 04.11.2008, 1196 post of Assistant Teachers were created in various district to be appointed in these primary schools and that in the District of Nainital, 84 posts of Assistant Teachers were created which were duly filled up and that one Assistant Teacher in the primary school, in question, at Ramnagar, was duly filled up in which one Mr. Santosh Kumar was appointed who is working. This fact regarding appointment of Santosh Kumar as an Assistant Teacher has been stated in paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit which fact has not been denied specifically in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon the up-gradation of the Education Guarantee Centre to a primary school, the Government Order of 15th May, 2006 and subsequent Government Orders issued thereafter clearly indicated the up-gradation of the petitioner from the post of Shiksha Anudeshak to the post of Shiksha Mitra and, therefore, under these Government Orders, the petitioner was entitled to continue as a Shiksha Mitra till the existence of the scheme. 7. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Once a school has been upgraded as a primary school, teachers are required to be appointed under the provisions of the Act. The State Government by an order dated 4th November, 2008, created 1196 posts of Assistant Teachers to be appointed in various primary schools in the State of Uttarakhand. It has come on record that one Assistant Teacher was appointed in this primary school where the petitioner alleged to have worked as a Shiksha Anudeshak. The State Government by an order dated 4th November, 2008, created 1196 posts of Assistant Teachers to be appointed in various primary schools in the State of Uttarakhand. It has come on record that one Assistant Teacher was appointed in this primary school where the petitioner alleged to have worked as a Shiksha Anudeshak. Upon the appointment of the Assistant Teacher, there was no requirement of Shiksha Mitra and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th July, 2009 which, in fact, according to the counter affidavit is dated 25th May, 2009, was passed. In my opinion, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the respondents. 8. The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in the event the petitioner has worked either as a Shiksha Anudeshak or as a Shiksha Mitra after the up-gradation of the Education Guarantee Centre to a primary school, the petitioner would be entitled to the honorarium of Shiksha Mitra pursuant to the Government Order dated 15th May, 2006 as modified by subsequent Government orders. 9. All the applications are disposed of accordingly.