Primary School Teachers (Shiksha Mitras) with D.El.Ed and TET qualifications are entitled to parity in regular appointment.

The petitioners, working as Shiksha Mitras in Government Primary Schools across Udham Singh Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, and Champawat, sought regular appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

They claim to possess the requisite eligibility, including TET and a two-year D.El.Ed qualification.

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

Furthermore, they claimed parity with other individuals (Praveen Lal and Puran Ram) who received similar appointments following a Co-ordinate Bench order in WPSS No. 1689 of 2023.

Despite submitting multiple representations, their claims remained unaddressed by the authorities.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant them regular appointment as Assistant Teachers in light of the Government Order dated 16.08.2019 and judicial precedents.

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

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

The court considered the applicability of the Government Order dated 16.08.2019, which stipulates the eligibility criteria (two-year D.El.Ed and TET) for the regularization of Shiksha Mitras.

The court also noted the principle of parity based on the precedent set in Praveen Lal and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (WPSS No. 1689 of 2023).

The court did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioners' eligibility for appointment at this stage.

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

Counsel for the petitioners requested a limited direction for the District Education Officer (Elementary) to examine the grievance, a request to which the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State did not object.

Consequently, the court found it appropriate to dispose of the petitions by establishing a timeline for a formal administrative review to determine if the petitioners were indeed eligible under the state’s existing policies and the cited judicial precedent.

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

The Court directed the concerned District Education Officer to examine the matter and take a decision in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible, but no later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representations.