Mandamus issued to consider Shiksha Mitras' representations for regular teacher appointment based on D.El.Ed and TET parity.

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

They claimed to possess the requisite eligibility, including TET qualifications and a two-year D.El.Ed degree, and cited unblemished service records.

The petitioners relied on a Government Order dated 16.08.2019 and a previous coordinate bench judgment in *Praveen Lal and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand* (WPSS No. 1689 of 2023) to claim parity.

Despite making several representations to the authorities, their claims remained unconsidered.

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

2. Whether the court should direct the District Education Officer (Elementary) to decide on the petitioners' pending grievances within a specified timeframe.

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the enforcement of employment rights.

The court considered the Government Order dated 16.08.2019, which provides for the regular appointment of Shiksha Mitras possessing two years’ D.El.Ed and TET qualifications.

The principle of parity was invoked based on the judicial precedent set in *Praveen Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand*, where similarly situated individuals were granted relief.

The court did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioners’ eligibility for the post of Assistant Teacher.

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 administrative decision by the District Education Officer (Elementary).

As the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State did not oppose this limited prayer, the court found it appropriate to delegate the examination of the petitioners' legal claims—specifically their qualifications and entitlement under the 2019 Government Order and the *Praveen Lal* precedent—to the concerned administrative authority.

The court permitted the petitioners to file fresh, separate representations with the District Education Officer (Elementary) concerned within two weeks.

The holding directed the said Officer to examine the matter and take a decision "as per law" as expeditiously as possible, but no later than eight weeks from the receipt of the representation.