HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 150 (SS) OF 2000 1. Gulshan Singh, S/o Mr. Mahipal Singh, R/o Moh. Bhoop Singh, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Achal Kumar, S/o Mr. Mahipal Singh, R/o Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar. .....Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Basic. 2. Director Education, Basic, Dehradun. 3. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur). ..........Respondents. Dated:03.07.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Khalil Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have gone B.T.C. Correspondence course but they are not being considered for appointment in Junior Basic Schools as she has not gone B.T.C. regular course. 3. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Ramesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 1993(2) ALR 88 that B.T.C. correspondence course should be treated as equivalent to B.T.C. regular course. 4. The petitioners should be treated as equivalent to the regular B.T.C. Course and the petitioner should be considered accordingly. 5. Following the said judgment, this petition is allowed subject to the verification and recognition from the concerned university. 6. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 03.07.2006 Rathour