IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Writ Petition No.614 of 2009 (S/S) Trilok Singh Nayal & others …..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents Mr K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Paresh Triapthi, Brief Holder for the respondents. (2) Writ Petition No.580 of 2009 (S/S) Sanjay Singh & others …..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Mr K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Paresh Triapthi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. (3) Writ Petition No.604 of 2009 (S/S) Anand Singh & others …..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Mr K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Paresh Triapthi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. (4) Writ Petition No.635 of 2009 (S/S) Pyar Singh Mahar & others …..Petitioners Versus 2 State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Mr K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Paresh Triapthi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. (5) Writ Petition No.643 of 2009 (S/S) Mahabeer Singh & others …..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Mr Vipul Painuly, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Paresh Triapthi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.06.2002, 04.11.2004 and 20.10.2004 by granting them benefit of Government Order dated 18.11.1982. The case of the petitioners is that they are graduates with ‘Vyayam Ratna’ from Maharani Laxmibai Viyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhanshi. According to them diploma in ‘Vyayam Ratna’ is a diploma in physical education which has been recognised as equivalent to D.P.Ed by the State Government vide Government Order No.1926/15-jkls-61/73 dated 18th November, 1982. The respondents issued advertisement on 18.06.2002, 04.11.2004 and 20.10.2004 but candidature of the petitioners was not considered by the respondents and 3 the respondents without considering the candidature of the petitioner have issued final select list in respect of posts advertised in Garhwal Mandal whereas respondents are going to issue final select list in respect of posts advertised in Kumaun Mandal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court that State Government had issued a Government Order dated 18.11.1982 declaring ‘Vyayam Ratna’ as equivalent to D.P.Ed course and in view of this Government Order the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the posts of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). He submitted that the course of ‘Vyayam Ratna’ is duly recognised as D.P.Ed. by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short NCTE) . He further submitted that respondents themselves have given appointment to few such candidates who were having diploma in ‘Vyayam Ratna’. He argued that the action of the respondents by not considering the candidature of petitioners for Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) is arbitrary and discriminatory. He prayed that direction be issued to respondents for considering the candidature of the petitioners for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted before the Court that the petitioners cannot take benefit of the Government Order dated 18.11.1982 as 4 relevant ‘Service Rules’ i.e. U.P. Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate) Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Service Rules’) do not provide any equivalence. He submitted that though ‘Vyayam Ratna’ has been recognised by the NCTE as D.P.Ed course but petitioners cannot be appointed on the ground of recognition by N.C.T.C. as it is exclusive domain of the State Government to accept such course for giving appointment under State Government. He further submitted that though the respondents have given appointment to some candidates having qualification of ‘Vyayam Ratna’ but their appointments have not been challenged by the petitioners and right of equivalence under Article 14 cannot be permitted in the present case. He argued that if appointment was wrongly given to one person, another person cannot be given appointment on the basis of parity. 4. On due consideration, this Court is of prima facie view that since Government Order dated 18.11.1982 has not been superseded by any subsequent Government Order and respondents themselves are giving appointment to those candidates having qualification of ‘Vyayam Ratna’, the petitioners are also entitled to be considered for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). Moreover, ‘Vyayam Ratna’ has also been duly recognized as D.P.Ed. by the NCTE. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the posts of 5 Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) provisionally. Same shall be subject to final decision of the writ petition. 5. List all these petitions on 09.09.2009 (V.K.Bist. J,) 04.09.2009 Arti