2025:UHC:7349 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1537/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as P.T.A. Teacher in a Government Aided Institution, namely- Sri Hoshiyar Singh Budhhumal Jain Balika Inter College, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, in 2010. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged an order dated 23.09.2022, passed by Chief Education Officer, Dehradun, whereby her representation for sending her name to the competent authority for payment of honorarium from State Exchequer, was rejected. 5. The ground taken for rejecting petitioner’s representation is that petitioner was engaged as a voluntary teacher by the Management, in view of the undertaking given by her that her services can be dispensed with any time and she will have no objection against dispensation of her services. It is further observed by the Chief Education Officer that petitioner passed B.Ed. examination only in 2016, therefore, she was 2025:UHC:7349 not eligible for appointment as teacher, before acquiring B.Ed. qualification. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as P.T.A. teacher in 2010, therefore, she is eligible for honorarium from State Exchequer. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that in 2010, petitioner was not qualified for appointment and she is no more in employment after 2017. Learned State Counsel further submits that as per Government Policy, only such teachers, who were appointed by the Parent Teacher Association upto a certain date and who also possessed all requisite qualifications for appointment and were appointed against a substantive vacancy on a post of teacher, alone are eligible for payment of honorarium from State Exchequer. He submits that petitioner has not made any pleading on these aspects, therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 8. This Court finds substance in the said submission. In the absence of necessary pleading, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487d f006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA8 75643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.21 10:32:27 +05'30'