JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. In all these bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners before this Court are candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools, for which an advertisement was issued by the State of Uttarakhand on 17.02.2016 in newspapers having wide circulation in Uttarakhand. The present petitioners were applicants in response to the above advertisement. According to the petitioners, they fulfill all the eligibility conditions. Subsequently, on 27.3.2016, the selection committee gave a news in newspapers that the result of the selection of primary school teachers for the year 2016 have been declared and are on the website of Uttarakhand Technical Education Board. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 623, 619, 622, 625, 418 & 422 of 2016 (who shall be referred for the sake of convenience as Group B Petitioners), however, did not find their names amongst the selected candidates. These petitioners were later informed that the reason why their names have been left out is that many candidates who were already selected in the previous selection year (i.e. in the year 2014) and were working in government schools, had also applied and hence were given preference over the petitioners. Since candidates, who were already working as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools were specifically barred from applying afresh in the present selection process, it did not take much time for the present petitioners to realize that there is an apparent violation of the conditions declared in the advertisement itself, hence they have filed the present writ petitions on grounds that inclusion of such persons in the selection list is per se illegal. 2. For some reasons, better known to the government, preference is given to candidates who have done their B.Ed. in earlier years. Therefore, a B.Ed. candidate of year 2005 will be given preference over a B.Ed. candidate of 2006 and so on, irrespective of their respective merit. Logically, all the candidates who are already working as teachers have done their B.Ed. earlier to the petitioners, they are certain to take a march over the petitioners in the present selection, in case they apply, and more importantly in case their inclusion is legal. 3. candidate of 2006 and so on, irrespective of their respective merit. Logically, all the candidates who are already working as teachers have done their B.Ed. earlier to the petitioners, they are certain to take a march over the petitioners in the present selection, in case they apply, and more importantly in case their inclusion is legal. 3. After the 86th Amendment in the Constitution of India in the year 2002 and incorporation of Article 21A as a Fundamental Right making elementary education free and compulsory for the children, a Parliamentary legislation was later enacted known as “the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009”. The elementary education has not only been made free and compulsory but it also has to be of better quality. Section 8 of the Act ensures good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and the norms specified in the Schedule to the Act. In the Schedule of the Act, certain norms have been laid down which a school has to fulfill such as student-teacher ratio, etc. Similar mandate is given in Section 19 of the Act as well as Section 25 of the Act, which specifically gives pupil-teacher ratio. 4. Section 29 of the Act lays down the curriculum and evaluation procedure. Section 29 of the Act reads as under:- “29. Curriculum and evaluation procedure.- (1) The curriculum and the evaluation procedure for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification. (2) The academic authority, while laying down the curriculum and the evaluation procedure under sub-section (1), shall take into consideration the following, namely:- (a) conformity with the values enshrined in the Constitution; (b) all round development of the child; (c) building up child’s knowledge, potentiality and talent; (d) development of physical and mental abilities to the fullest extent; (e) learning through activities, discovery and exploration in a child friendly and child-centered manner; (f) medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child’s mother tongue; (g) making the child free of fear, trauma and anxiety and helping the child to express views freely; (h) comprehensive and continuous evaluation of child’s understanding of knowledge and his or her ability to apply the same.” 5. Under Section 23 of the Act “an academic authority authorised by the Central Government” has been empowered to lay down the qualification for an elementary school teacher. Section 23 of the Act addresses this issue, which reads as follows:- “23. (1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teacher shall be such as may prescribed.” 6. A perusal of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 shows that the minimum qualifications for a teacher in elementary school have to be laid down by “an academic authority, which is authorized by the Central Government by a notification and only such teachers who are eligible as per the qualifications laid down by such an academic authority can be appointed as a teacher in elementary school. 7. Under the above provision i.e., Section 23(1) of the Act, National Council for Teachers Education (from hereinafter referred to as NCTE) has been authorized vide a notification as the academic authority to lay down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in elementary school. The NCTE vide Gazette Notification dated 23.08.2010 had laid down the minimum qualifications for a teacher in elementary school. 8. Clearly, the intention of the Parliamentary legislation, which is also subsequently reflected in the notification of the National Council for Teachers Education (From hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) dated 23.08.2010 is that elementary education, i.e., from Class-1 to Class-8, is now a Fundamental Right of a child and it is free and compulsory, but this education also has to be a meaningful education. In order that elementary education, becomes a meaningful education, one of the essential conditions should be that such schools which come under the jurisdiction of the Right to Education Act, are manned by teachers, who are well educated and well trained. It is for this reason that two conditions have been made absolutely essential – first their having a diploma or certificate of at least two years in elementary education from a recognized institution, by whichever name called in the State, and the second is a mandatory qualification, which is known as Teacher’s Eligibility Test (from hereinafter referred to as “TET”). In the said notification, however, there was a saving clause, which was for a limited period, where a State Government was of the opinion depending on its special circumstances and contingencies, that trained teachers in elementary education were not available in that State, then it could make a request to the Central Government for relaxation of the mandatory condition of trained teachers in elementary education. In view of the above provision, the State Government in Uttarakhand requested NCTE that since it has shortage of trained manpower to run primary schools, therefore till March 31, 2016 it may be allowed to recruit teachers who have B.Ed. qualification i.e. Bachelor in Education, instead of training in elementary education. Initially, the Central Government granted this concession till 31.03.2014 and later it was extended till 31.03.2016 by notification of the Government of India dated 12.08.2014, as such exemption can only be granted by Government of India under clause 2 of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act. In other words, B.Ed. qualified candidates have a last chance to appear in the present selection process for the elementary schools as this concession given by the Central Government would last only till 31.03.2016, i.e., the last selection process, which is the present selection process. This aspect has an important bearing in the present case. 9. The essential qualification for a teacher in primary school is a Diploma or Certificate in elementary education. In Uttarakhand, it is known as B.T.C. or Basic Teaching Certificate. An aspirant has to qualify a competitive examination in order to get admission in B.T.C. for which there are limited seats. This aspect has an important bearing in the present case. 9. The essential qualification for a teacher in primary school is a Diploma or Certificate in elementary education. In Uttarakhand, it is known as B.T.C. or Basic Teaching Certificate. An aspirant has to qualify a competitive examination in order to get admission in B.T.C. for which there are limited seats. This training in conducted only in Government institutions in Uttarakhand which are located in each of its 13 districts and are known as D.I.E.T. or District Institute of Education & Training. B.T.C. is a two year intensive course and there is almost an assured placement as an elementary school teacher thereafter, subject to other qualifications of a candidate. On the other hand, B.Ed. is a graduate degree in Education, in other words Bachelor in Education. It is definitely a course in pedagogy, but not geared to elementary education as B.T.C. most definitely is. It is for this reason that NCTE in its notification dated 23.08.2010, has unambiguously emphasised that the mandatory requirement for an elementary school teacher would be a qualification in elementary education which is known as B.T.C. in Uttarakhand. As we have seen only a relaxation is given to B.Ed. candidates, which will not extend beyond this year. 10. Since B.T.C. as a course or training is geared towards primary education, the Government in erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in Uttarakhand gave priority to a B.T.C. trained candidate who had done his B.T.C earlier as against the one who did later. All the same, when the same benefit was being given to B.Ed. candidates for employment in primary schools, it came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 587 of 2014, Keshavanand Jhaldiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 16.06.2014 and the preference given to earlier year B.Ed. candidates as against those who had done B.Ed. in later year inspite of their respective merits was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This was, however, challenged in Special Appeal No. 390 of 2014, which was allowed vide order dated 22.09.2014 and the preference given to B.Ed. candidates in terms of their seniority in B.Ed. was held to be correct. Consequently the law as it stands now is that a B.Ed. This was, however, challenged in Special Appeal No. 390 of 2014, which was allowed vide order dated 22.09.2014 and the preference given to B.Ed. candidates in terms of their seniority in B.Ed. was held to be correct. Consequently the law as it stands now is that a B.Ed. candidate of earlier year has to be preferred against a B.Ed. candidate of later years. 11. Two conditions are necessary, in the present selection process. Firstly, the B.Ed. candidates are the only candidates to be considered in the present selection process and, secondly, such candidates who have done their B.Ed. in earlier year are to be considered first and only after the list of such candidates is exhausted, the candidates who have done B.Ed. in the next year can be considered. It appears that the candidates, who had done their B.Ed in the year 2004, 2005 & 2006 were already considered in the last selection. Most of them have also been appointed. The main criteria was the year of qualifying B.Ed. examination. Many of the selected candidates in the last selection year 2014 were having B.Ed. in the year 2004, 2005 and 2006, but since they were lower in the list, they were not given the posting of their choice but were given postings in other districts. In most of these cases, the choice which was given was for the plain areas in Uttarakhand such as districts Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar and the far flung remote hill districts such as Uttarkashi, Pithoragarh, Bageshwar, Chamoli and Rudraprayag were the districts least favoured by candidates. It must also be mentioned here that though selection in Primary school is done at State level, yet it is a district cadre post. 12. By logic, therefore, many of the candidates though selected in the last selection process but being lower in the list were given posting in the hill districts. As they wanted to be appointed in the plain areas or according to them in a comfortable zone, such as district Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar, they have applied yet again in the present selection process. Being candidates who had done their B.Ed. in earlier year as against the majority of the present candidates who have done their B.Ed. As they wanted to be appointed in the plain areas or according to them in a comfortable zone, such as district Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar, they have applied yet again in the present selection process. Being candidates who had done their B.Ed. in earlier year as against the majority of the present candidates who have done their B.Ed. in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 who were to participate this year, these candidates of earlier years though already in service are bound to take a march over the rest and likely to get their choice of districts as well. This is the only reason for them for applying again in the present selection as otherwise they are already working as primary school teachers. 13. The Administration, was also conscious of this fact and, therefore, it had cautioned such candidates well in time. The advertisement stipulates that a candidate must apply after going through all the conditions which are given in the official website of the Department. In it was a specific condition, namely, clause 7 G, which if translated into English would mean that “teachers already working in Government Primary Schools are not eligible for appointment since they are already working on the same post”. The petitioners in WPSS Nos. 450, 452, 466, 605 & 632 of 2016 (from hereinafter referred to as Group A petitions) were already working in their respective Government primary schools in hill districts such as Pithoragarh, Champawat and Almora. 14. In order to secure appointment in plain areas, the petitioners in “Group A” petitions, all of whom are presently working as primary school teachers in hill districts, have applied again for the selection year 2016. But being aware of clause 7 G which made them ineligible, they have filed the writ petitions before this Court on grounds that this condition which debars them is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As an interim measure, by way of caution it was directed that if the petitioners apply as a candidate in the ongoing selection process, their candidature shall be considered although that would be purely provisional in nature and shall be subject to final determination of the writ petition. 15. As an interim measure, by way of caution it was directed that if the petitioners apply as a candidate in the ongoing selection process, their candidature shall be considered although that would be purely provisional in nature and shall be subject to final determination of the writ petition. 15. The question, which has now come up for determination is whether the conditions imposed by the State Government debarring such teachers who are already in Government service as primary school teachers from applying afresh in the present ongoing selection, is violative of the Constitution of India and the laws and if it is how! 16. The prayers sought by petitioners of Group A petitions are just opposite to the one being sought by the other i.e. Group B petitioners. The logic taken by the petitioners in Group A petitions is that the restriction imposed by clause 7G makes them ineligible for applying again is primarily violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. Since the petitioners in Group A petitions claims protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 mandates that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” The restriction which is imposed by the State Government debarring the petitioners in the ongoing selection exercise is what is actually mandated by the second part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e. “equal protection of the laws”. Equal protection of laws requires positive and proactive assurance from the State to protect all persons equally. The restriction imposed under clause 7G does precisely this, as it protects a person under the equality clause. Article 14 permits reasonable classification and as such candidates who have already secured appointment and have been working as teachers were not allowed to participate again as they are bound to get an advantage against other candidates irrespective of their relative merit. It is for this reason that they have been debarred from appearing again. It is to protect other candidates, that a reasonable classification has been created, which has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As we have already noticed, this is the last chance of B.Ed. qualified candidates for appearing in the present selection for primary school teachers. It is to protect other candidates, that a reasonable classification has been created, which has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As we have already noticed, this is the last chance of B.Ed. qualified candidates for appearing in the present selection for primary school teachers. Those who have already secured appointment cannot be equated with the ones who are still struggling to get one. Unequals cannot be treated as equals. 18. It can also not be the case of the petitioners in Group A petitions that they are being discriminated inspite of their merit. In fact they are the ones who are affecting the merit in the present selection, by ascertaining their inclusion in the present selection process. This Court has already observed in the preceding paragraphs that the present selection process has been undertaken by the State Government as a special drive which is only for the B.Ed. qualified candidates. On the date of advertisement, there were only 1200 seats available in the State for primary school teachers. All these seats were to be filled by the B.Ed. candidates apparently under the pressure of unemployed B.Ed. qualified candidates, who saw it to be the last opportunity for being employed as primary school teachers. The State has also taken plea that there are many vacancies in primary schools, particularly in remote areas which are lying vacant where trained teachers are not available. Now the necessary implication of allowing the working Assistant Teacher Primary School in the present selection process would be that they would be given a preference and would be at the top of the select list, not because of their merit, but because their B.Ed. is of an earlier year. By doing so, they would encroach upon the rights of such candidates who could not secure appointment in previous selection process in spite of their merit, merely for the reason that they acquired B.Ed. qualification in later years. Another anomaly which would result and which seems to be the real reason for making this classification, is that these teachers (i.e. Group A teachers), would necessarily have to vacate their seats on which they are already working, thereby creating vacancies again, for which there are no readily available teachers. In due course when these vacancies do get filled, and hopefully by duly trained and fully eligible teachers, the present B.Ed. In due course when these vacancies do get filled, and hopefully by duly trained and fully eligible teachers, the present B.Ed. qualified candidates would be out of competition, as this is their last chance of competing. In short, this would defeat the very purpose of the relaxation granted for a limited period for B.Ed. trained teachers. Whichever way we look at it, there is an illegality writ large on the participation of “working teachers” in the present selection process. 19. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Upadhyaya (of Group B petitions), such teachers i.e. Group A teachers, who had applied in the present selection process have not taken prior permission for applying again in the new selection process, which was a mandatory requirement. In any case, there was no question of seeking or getting such a permission since there is already a specific bar on their participation. 20. The entire selection process in the Government Order dated 31.1.2014 is as per clause 8 which if translated into English would read as under:- “8. Selection Process – The entire selection process shall be carried out under the supervision/direction of the Additional Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Selection shall be made on the basis of the seniority of the year of training and merit of quality points. The quality points shall be worked out as follows:- (a) As per the total quality points obtained on the basis of their marks in academic, training and Teachers Eligibility Test, the names of the candidates shall be placed in the descending order of the seniority of the year of training qualification; however, in case two candidates have the same training year and quality points, the candidate senior in age shall be given preference in the selection. The calculation of the quality points shall be made as under:- Serial No. Exam/Name of Degree Quality Points 1. High School Percentage of Marks x 0.75/10 2. Intermediate Percentage of Marks x 1.5/10 3. Graduation Percentage of Marks x 2.25/10 4. Training B.Ed/D.Ed. (Special Education)/B.Ed. (Special Education) A. Theoretical B. Practical Percentage of Marks x 3/10 Percentage of Marks x 1.5/10 5. Teachers’ Eligibility Test: (I to V) Percentage of Marks x 1/10 Joint Seniority List shall be prepared at the State Level and the districts shall be allotted to the candidates on the basis of options. Training B.Ed/D.Ed. (Special Education)/B.Ed. (Special Education) A. Theoretical B. Practical Percentage of Marks x 3/10 Percentage of Marks x 1.5/10 5. Teachers’ Eligibility Test: (I to V) Percentage of Marks x 1/10 Joint Seniority List shall be prepared at the State Level and the districts shall be allotted to the candidates on the basis of options. b. Against the total number of vacancies available in a district, the selection of 50 percent shall be made from non-science side and the selection of 50 percent science category candidates shall be done under the prescribed rules. c. Only on the basis of the information mentioned in the application forms received from the candidates, the Seniority List shall be prepared. Along with the application form, the Teachers’ Eligibility Test being organized by the Uttarakhand Government or the passed mark-sheet of C.T.E. for Class 1 to 5, the passed out mark-sheets of High School, Intermediate, Graduate examination and B.Ed./Special Education/D.Ed. Special Education issued from a recognized Board/College/University and the caste certificate issued by the competent authority and the copy of special reservation certificate shall be submitted self-attested. The waiting list in excess for more than 25 percent shall be prepared separately. d. The entire prescribed eligibility should be completed by the concerned candidates by the last date of applying as per the advertisement. e. The verification of the documents of the selected candidates shall be got done by the Appointing Authority from the Institutes issuing such certificate. In case of finding any discrepancy in verification, the selection/enquiry/appointment/training, at any stage, the candidature of the candidate shall be cancelled and the legal action shall be initiated against the candidate by lodging a first information report against him.” (emphasis supplied) 21. In view of the provisions laid down in Rule 8, the petitioners in group A writ petitions have already exhausted their right and have already been given appointment. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Group B petitions that permitting the petitioners of Group A petitions will be violative of condition which says that only such candidates can apply who are registered with employment exchange. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Group B petitions that permitting the petitioners of Group A petitions will be violative of condition which says that only such candidates can apply who are registered with employment exchange. Since the petitioners in Group A petitions were already teaching in Government Primary School, they were not registered in the employment exchange and in case they have given their registration number it is misleading and wrong information and on this ground alone their candidature is liable to be rejected. 22. Another objection of Group B petitioners would be that as per clause 9 of the Government Order dated 31.1.2014, there is a provision that a candidate shall be given special training of six months as he is not trained for taking elementary classes. Since the petitioners in Group A petitions have already undergone such a training, by necessary implication there would be additional burden on exchequer as they would have to go for such training once again. 23. The stand of the State Government in its counter affidavit is that such candidates who have come up before this Court, who had already taken part in the selection process without informing the Department have violated the specific condition of Government Order and have defeated the purpose of the special drive. Learned State Counsel further submits that before a selected candidate is given appointment, an undertaking is taken from him that he was not teaching already as primary school teacher, and in case such a fact is discovered, a departmental proceeding will also be initiated against such a person. The counter affidavit of the State though at many places is also evasive. 24. After hearing both Groups of petitioners as well as the State, it is clear that such candidates who are not before this Court i.e. other than Group A petitioners, but have taken part in the selection process as candidates already in service in Primary Schools are not only debarred from the selection process but have participated in the selection process by misrepresentation, as this Court has been informed that apart from Group A petitioners many similarly situated have actually participated in the selection process without seeking an order from this Court. These candidates shall in no case be given appointment if selected, and if by mistake any such appointment has been given, the order will be recalled forthwith after scrutiny of such candidates. This Court has been informed that there is a sizeable number of such candidates. 25. It must be added here that today prior to arguments, Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 422 of 2016, made a mention that his petition which is also relating exactly to the same issue could not be listed with the present bunch of writ petitions and may also be called. The learned Addl. C.S.C. has no objections and has assured this Court that he would get his file. Consequently the records of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 422 of 2016 were also been summoned and matter heard along with present bunch of writ petitions. 26. After hearing all the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Group B petitions deserve to be allowed. Group B petitions i.e. WPSS Nos. 623, 619, 622, 625, 418 & 422 of 2016 are hereby allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent authorities to immediately constitute a High Level Committee to scrutinize the credentials of each selected candidates and in case it is found that any of the candidates who have been selected was already teaching in Government Primary School in Uttarakhand, not only his name be removed from the list of selected candidates, but all proceedings available under the law be initiated against such candidates. 27. As far as petitioners in Group A petitions are concerned i.e. WPSS Nos. 450, 452, 466, 605 & 632 of 2016, their writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order, given in their case is also hereby vacated. The candidature of the petitioners in Group A petitions shall not be considered in the present ongoing selection process. It is, however, made clear that since they have participated in the selection process by orders of this Court, departmental proceedings may not be initiated against them. 28. So far as WPSS No. 844 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed that many of the candidates who have been selected or allowed to participate have actually not done their TET, but some of them have done CTET i.e. Central Teachers Eligibility Test after 2011 which was not permissible under law. 28. So far as WPSS No. 844 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed that many of the candidates who have been selected or allowed to participate have actually not done their TET, but some of them have done CTET i.e. Central Teachers Eligibility Test after 2011 which was not permissible under law. This contention of the petitioner, on the face of it, does not appear to be correct as it is the Central Government Body i.e. NCTE which has allowed B.Ed. qualified candidates to take part in the selection process till 31.3.2016. By necessary implication, therefore, if such candidates have passed their TET after 2011 apparently there seems to be no anomaly unless there was any specific restriction on this and it is the selection committee who will look into this aspect before issuing appointment letters to such candidates. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 844 of 2016 has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 29. Having decided the above writ petitions on merits, there is another fact, which must be noticed by this Court, that Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate has filed two writ petitions (WPSS No. 418 & 632 of 2016) before this Court, which have a “conflict of interest”, as the counsel is exposing rival causes in the different petitions. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to give explanation on this aspect. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, who is a counsel in two writ petitions, submits that what he was actually arguing in the two writ petitions was that writ petition of Pooja Kamboj i.e. WPSS No. 418 of 2016 was filed by him earlier, wherein the petitioner – Pooja Kamboj who was already working as Assistant Teacher had sought permission from this Court to appear in the examination for the post of Assistant Teacher for the selection year 2015-16 in spite of ineligibility attached to her. By an interim order of this Court, she was allowed to appear in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher. After filing the writ petition (WPSS No. 418 of 2016), he filed another writ petition (WPSS No. 632 of 2016) before this Court, which apparently appears to be a ‘conflict of interest’. By an interim order of this Court, she was allowed to appear in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher. After filing the writ petition (WPSS No. 418 of 2016), he filed another writ petition (WPSS No. 632 of 2016) before this Court, which apparently appears to be a ‘conflict of interest’. The counsel, however, explains this by stating that his case was primarily against such candidates, who had participated in the process without seeking permission of the Court and without disclosing true facts to the State Government. He though fairly admits that as an afterthought he did realize that there still may be a conflict of interest and hence refrained from arguing either way. 31. Although this Court is not satisfied with this explanation given by the learned counsel, yet since the counsel, in these two cases (WPSS No. 418 & 632 of 2016) is a young lawyer and this is the first instance of this nature against him, this Court refrains from saying anything further in the matter. He is warned to be cautious in future. 32. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Uttarakhand and the Director of Education for onward compliance of the directions contained in this order. The Registrar General is directed to do the needful.