2026:UHC:147 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 1928 of 2022 With WPSS No. 1296 of 2015 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 4. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent-NCTE. 5. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 1928 of 2022 alone are being considered and discussed. 6. Petitioners obtained Basic Teacher Certificate through correspondence mode. In their mark-sheet, however, there was a stipulation that the certificate issued to them will not be valid for appointment under the State. 7. Petitioners contend that certain candidates, who also obtained Basic Teacher Certificate through correspondence mode along with petitioners, were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools, therefore, petitioners cannot be denied the right to be considered for 2026:UHC:147 public employment. 8. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the contention raised on behalf of petitioners that similarly situate persons were given regular appointment as Assistant Teacher is incorrect; however, he concedes that some of the candidates, who obtained BTC qualification through correspondence, were given contractual appointment for one academic session only on consolidated honorarium. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the persons who were appointed on contract basis on fixed honorarium, however, are still continuing in service. 10. Learned State Counsel further submits that the validity of Government Order dated 27.11.2006 was upheld by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPSS No. 156 of 2010, which was upheld by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 261 of 2018. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have made representation(s) to the Competent Authority with a request to engage the petitioners on contract basis, like other similarly situate persons were engaged. He submits that the Competent Authority be asked to take decision on the said representation. 12. Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection if the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are 2026:UHC:147 disposed of with a direction to Director, Elementary Education to take decision on petitioners’ representation(s), as per law, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, along with photocopy of the said representation(s). ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 05.01.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3 a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22D ACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.01.05 04:47:45 -08'00'