COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 875/2004 Smt. Seema Chauhan & Other …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others. …….Respondents Sri V.K. Bist, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 30th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 19.7.2004 and 22.7.2004. By the impugned orders, which are contained in Annexure No. 13 and 12-C to the writ petition, the appointments which were given to the petitioners were cancelled. 2. An advertisement was published on 25.6.2002 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade. In pursuance of the said advertisement, petitioners submitted their applications. Petitioners are Post Graduate and B.Ed. In the advertisement it was mentioned that on the last of submission of the applications, the candidates must be in possession of required qualification and in case final exam is over but the results thereof were not declared, then those candidates may submit their marksheets within three days from the date of declaration of results. Petitioners submitted their marksheets of post graduation according to the aforesaid condition/direction stipulated in the 2 advertisement but the respondents did not consider the same while calculating the quality points while some other candidates who submitted their marksheets like the petitioners were given benefit thereof. The respondents in para 14 of the counter affidavit has admitted that due to clerical mistake the marksheets of post graduation in respect of the petitioners could not be produced before the Selection Committee and as such the quality points of post gradutation could not be added in total quality points. 3. When the appointment letters were not issued to the petitioners, they preferred writ petition no. 361 (S/S) of 2003 before this Court, which was finally disposed of on 7.7.2003 in terms of judgment passed in writ petition no. 1484 (S/B) of 2002, wherein it was provided by this Court that in case any person having less quality points than the petitioners has been given appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, the petitioners shall also be given appointment. 4. Thereafter on 15.7.2004, the respondents issued appointment orders/letters in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners were required to join on or before 30.7.2004. Petitioner no. 2 submitted her joining report on 19.7.2004. Petitioner no. 1 also approached for joining on 19.7.2004 but refused by the Principal of the school and vide the impugned orders, the appointment orders in respect of the petitioners were cancelled. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 19.7.2004 reveals that the same has been passed considering the order dated 21.6.2004 passed by this Court in writ 3 petition no. 737 (S/S) of 2003, Smt. Neeta Lohani v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors, where it was held that selection of those candidates who have completed graduation with Home Science as a subject do not fulfill the eligibility prescribed under the rule. Petitioners do not have degree in Home Science and they had Home Science as one of the subjects in graduation. 6. Impugned orders are liable to be set aside on several counts. Firstly, because the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.6.2004 was reviewed by this Court vide its order dated 14.6.2005 and it was provided that the judgment and order dated 21.6.2004 shall operate prospectively and shall not affect the appointments already made. Secondly, because the petitioners have pleaded discrimination that similarly situated candidates have been given appointments but the case of the petitioners have been ignored and this has not been denied by the respondents. Lastly, since the petitioners submitted their marksheets of post graduation according to the condition stipulated in the advertisement and, therefore, the benefit of same should have been given to the petitioners at the time of calculating the quality points as were given to other similarly situated candidates. 7. In the result, writ petition succeeds. Impugned orders are hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.7.2008 Prabodh