IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1216 (SS) of 2011 Km. Kausal Chaudhary …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel present for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel present for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. The petitioner did her intermediate with “Drawing and Design”. According to the petitioner, she was not being considered eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) “Art”. According to the respondents, the petitioner must have possessed intermediate with either “Drawing and Painting” or “Technical Art”. This aspect has already been decided by this Court on 01.09.2011 in the case of Km. Renu Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition No. 900 (SS) of 2011); where distinction between “Drawing and Design”, “Drawing and Painting” and “Technical Art” has been held irrelevant for the present purpose and the writ petition was allowed. This writ petition therefore, similar in nature, stands allowed in terms of Writ Petition no. 900 (SS) of 2011. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 21.09.2011 VKG