IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 920 (SS) of 2011 Parmendra Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel present for respondent no. 5. Connected with Writ Petition No. 916 (SS) of 2011 Suneel Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel present for respondent no. 5. With Writ Petition No. 917 (SS) of 2011 Pitamber Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel present for respondent no. 5. With Writ Petition No. 918 (SS) of 2011 Dimple Kumar Gaur and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel present for respondent no. 5. And 2 Writ Petition No. 919 (SS) of 2011 Bhupendra Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel present for respondent no. 5. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 along with application for condonation of delay. Reasons assigned for delay in filing the counter affidavit appear to be bona fide. Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 10961 of 2011) is allowed. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 is taken on record. Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. The petitioners are B.Ed. with B.Sc. in agriculture and his graduation in agriculture is not treated to be equivalent to graduate. Moreover, the petitioners have also less than 50% in B. Ed. and has not been considered as equal. This controversy as far as the percentage of marks in B.Ed. is concerned has been decided in writ petition no. 772 (SS) of 2011 Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others where this Court has held that percentage of marks of his graduation is now of consequence of a little relevance for appearing in the said Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination. There is another difference in the present matter which is that the petitioners have done their graduation 3 in agriculture. In other words, the petitioners have a degree known as B.Sc. (Agriculture), which has not been considered as equivalent to graduation. This contention of the respondents is wholly incorrect inasmuch as there is nothing specifically mentioned in the notification passed by academic body of Central Government knows as National Council for Teacher Education which disqualifies a candidate having degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture) to appear in the T.E.T. nor is there any such specification in the government order passed by the State of Uttarakhand. In any case, by an interim order of this Court the petitioners have already appeared in the T.E.T. conducted on 27.8.2011. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioners successfully qualify the T.E.T. merely the fact that the petitioners are B.Sc. in agriculture shall not come in their way while asserting their qualifications. In other words, the petitioners would be treated to have been graduates, as they are admittedly B.Sc. in Agriculture. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above terms. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 19.10.2011 VKG