IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 900 of 2011 Km. Renu ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 901 of 2011 Anjana Bhardwaj ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 675 of 2011 Smt. Indu Jyoti ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 899 of 2011 Km. Renu Arya ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1039 of 2011 Km. Bhawana ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1119 of 2011 Soni Rana ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1007 of 2011 Pradeep Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate present for respondent no. 4. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1005 of 2011 Rohit Pal ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. 2 Present : Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1006 of 2011 Nivedita ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. A. S. Rawat, Senior advocate assisted by Mr. R. S. Bisht, Mr. C.K. Sharma and Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. All the petitioners before this Court are the candidates for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Arts). Since all these writ petitions pertain to similar issue, they are being decided together by a common order. The Government of Uttarakhand vide its advertisement dated 30.09.2010 advertised 381 posts of Assistant Teacher (Arts) L.T. Grade for the entire State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners are graduates with (Bachelor of Arts). The word “Arts” would mean “Drawing” as well as “Drawing and Painting”, etc. In fact it is this word “Arts” which has created a lot of confusion presently and has given rise to these writ petitions. One of the essential conditions for appointment of an Assistant Teacher (Arts) is having a Bachelor Degree in Arts or Bachelor Degree with Drawing and Painting or such equivalent qualification along with Intermediate Examination with Technical Art/Drawing and Painting. 3 All the petitioners before this Court have all the eligible qualifications except that they have not done their intermediate in either “Technical Art” or “Drawing and Painting”, but instead they have done their intermediate, inter alia, with “Drawing and Design”. It is this aspect, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, as the respondents have found all of them ineligible for this reason as according to the respondents they ought to have done their intermediate, inter alia, with the subject either “Technical Art” or “Drawing and Painting”. Since this is not the case, all of them are ineligible! The State counsel has further submitted that in the pattern of intermediate examination there has been a change in the State of Uttarakhand with effect from 12.8.2010 as now C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) pattern is in force since 12.8.2010 and therefore the subject now is known as “Drawing and Painting”. Prior to it, according to the respondents, the subject was known as “Technical Art”. The respondents have stated that the qualifications of such teachers and the eligibility have been laid down in the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006. This was amended from 12.8.2010 and for the Assistant Teacher “Arts” the earlier qualification was amended as under :- Column -1 Column -2 Existing Rule Rules as hereby substituted (3) Intermediate Examination Intermediate Examination passed with Technical Drawing passed with Technical Subject Drawing/Drawing & Painting 4 The State counsel Sri B. D. Upadhyay has stated that this amendment was brought in the year 2009 since the Board of Uttarakhand has adopted the CBSE pattern, an aspect which has already been referred above. What matters presently before this Court is that the petitioners have done their intermediate neither with “Technical Art” or with “Drawing and Painting” but their certificates show that one of the subject they had in the intermediate was “Drawing and Design”. According to the respondents, they are hence disqualified. This Court on 12.8.2011 has called for the syllabus of the entire subjects available to a student in 2005 Board Examination conducted by Uttarakhand Intermediate Education Board as well as the present syllabus. Sri B.D. Upadhyaya, Additional Advocate General has submitted before this Court a syllabus which was applicable prior to 2007-09 when a candidate in “painting” actually who appears for the examination has to write a paper of “100 marks”. The question paper is divided into two parts. The first part which is of 50 marks gives him a choice either to attempt questions pertaining to “drawing and design” or “Technical Art”. The second part is common to all these candidates. In other words, if a candidate chooses to answer questions relating to “Technical Art” only then he would be made eligible as a candidate who has done his intermediate in “Technical Art” and according to the respondents if the similarly placed candidates in the said examination chose to answer for “Drawing and Design”, they shall not be eligible, as in the certificate what will be stated is “Drawing and Design” and not “Technical Art”. Here lies the actual mistake committed by the respondents. This is so because the subjects is neither “Technical Art” nor “Drawing and Painting” or even “Drawing and Design”. The subject is “painting”! 5 In short, this Court has been apprised of the fact that prior to 2009-10 when the CBSE pattern was not in force the subject was only known as “Painting”. At that time, in the intermediate examination, the questions, which a candidate had to attempt, consisted of two parts. The first part was common to all but in the second part there was a choice. This choice was left to the candidate either to attempt questions relating to “Drawing and Design” or attempt questions relating to “Technical Art”. It is here where the chief distinction, which has given rise to the present controversy, has actually arisen. It must be stated again though at the cost of repetition that prior to 2009-10, the subject was known as “Painting” and this distinction of a certificate being awarded in the subject of “Technical Art” or “Drawing in Design” is nowhere in the Rules or Regulations pertaining to such intermediate examination but the distinction arises on the basis of the questions attempted by a candidate. In other words, if a candidate attempts the question relating to “Drawing and Design”, his certificate will show that he has done his intermediate in “Drawing and Design” and if he attempts the question relating to “Technical Art” his certificate will show that he has done his intermediate in “Technical Art”. This is the chief distinction which has been stated before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Regulations which were applicable in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand by which the candidates were exempted to appear in Technical Art paper. Regulation, namely, Appendix A which is a part of intermediate education Regulation shows that the candidates who have to teach in girls school are exempted from the qualification of “Technical Art”. When candidates teaching in girls school were exempted from attempting questions relating to “Technical Art” this Court 6 fails to comprehend as to why such importance is being given to this aspect now, where many petitioners are girl candidates, and as stated by their counsel before this Court they may actually be teaching in girl’s school. This Court has also examined the nature of questions asked from a candidate of either “Technical Art” or “Drawing and Design” or “Drawing and Painting”. There does not seem to be any great difference here as well. Even assuming that there is a difference it is of little relevance at the present juncture where irrespective of whether a candidate has done his intermediate in “Technical Art” or “Drawing and Design”, he has also done his graduation from “Arts” with “Drawing and Design” as a subject. Therefore the distinction is only of nomenclature and there is no difference of any substance. This being the state of affairs debarring a candidate who has done his intermediate in drawing and design in a particular examination where he or she chooses to answer the questions of “drawing and design” is absolutely wrong. Moreover this fine distinction admittedly has been brought out only after 2009-10 after the adoption of CBSE pattern syllabus where the subject is now shown as drawing and painting specifically. This being the state of affairs all the petitioners who have done their intermediate with the subject known as drawing and design are clearly eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Arts) and the eligibility which has been given in Uttaranchal Subordinate Education (Trained Teacher Grade) Service Rules, 2006 as well as Regulation the word “Drawing and Design” shall also be read as “Drawing and Painting”. Consequently the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners who have done their 7 intermediate with “Drawing and Design” considering them to be eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). All the aforesaid writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 1.9.2011 Avneet