2026:UHC:3691 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1271 of 2026 14 May, 2026 Mohammad Shamim & others --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to respondent no. 1- Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand, to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation dated 26.03.2025, annexure-6 to the writ petition, regarding the grant of consequential service benefits arising out of corrected seniority, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners were initially appointed as untrained teachers. Government Order No. 722/XXIV(1)/2005/22/2005 dated 16.11.2005 was issued by the respondent-State, wherein it was provided that if an untrained teacher puts in five years of continuous service, such teacher shall be entitled to get the trained pay scale as well as seniority from the date of completion of five years. Petitioners were not provided the benefit of the aforesaid Government Order, constraining them to file Claim Petition No. 74/SB/2024 before the Public Services Tribunal, which came to be decided and disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2024, directing the petitioners to make 2026:UHC:3691 2 a representation to the Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand. Petitioners moved a representation before the Secretary, which came to be decided by order dated 06.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners moved a fresh representation before the Secretary on 26.03.2025, annexure-6 to the writ petition. 3. Since the representation submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal has already been decided by respondent no. 1-Secretary vide order dated 06.03.2025, there is no reason to move a second representation and, consequently, no such direction can be issued to respondent no. 1 to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners after rejection of the earlier representation. 4. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the same is dismissed in-limine. 5. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by respondent no.1-Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand, before the appropriate forum. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.05.2026 AK