Mandamus Issued for Timely Consideration of Representation for Regularization of Shiksha Mitras Based on Parity.

Five petitioners, currently serving as Shiksha Mitras in Government Primary Schools across Udham Singh Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, and Champawat, sought regular appointment as Assistant Teachers.

The petitioners claim to possess the requisite eligibility, specifically two-year D.El.Ed diplomas and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualifications.

They relied on a Government Order dated 16.08.2019, which provides for the regular appointment of Shiksha Mitras holding these qualifications.

They cited parity with other similarly situated individuals (Praveen Lal and Puran Ram) appointed via a previous court order in WPSS No. 1689 of 2023.

Having received no response to their prior representations to the authorities, they approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them regular appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher based on their qualifications and past Government Orders.

2. Whether the Court should direct the District Education Officer (Elementary) to consider and decide upon the petitioners' grievances within a specified timeframe.

The Court’s decision is governed by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions or writs for the enforcement of rights.

The court considered the Government Order dated 16.08.2019, which outlines eligibility for the regularisation of Shiksha Mitras possessing D.El.Ed and TET qualifications.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of judicial parity, referencing the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in Praveen Lal and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (WPSS No. 1689 of 2023).

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners' eligibility for regularisation at this stage.

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse regarding the respondents' failure to consider the petitioners' representations.

Counsel for the petitioners limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound direction to the District Education Officer (Elementary) to examine their grievances.

Since the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State did not oppose this procedural request, the Court determined that the most appropriate remedy was to direct the administrative authority to exercise its statutory function and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

The Court permitted the petitioners to submit fresh, separate representations to the respective District Education Officer (Elementary) within two weeks.

The holding directed the concerned District Education Officers to examine the matters and take a decision "as per law" as expeditiously as possible, but no later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representations.