IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 294 OF 2004 Basudev Singh and others. …….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ………..Respondents. Present:- Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Date of Decision:- 5.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petitioner as the are aggrieved by the quality points being awarded to certain candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade in Physical Education in the Government Higher Secondary Schools. The crux of the argument of the petitioners is that the eligibility condition for appointment of Assistant Teacher is graduation with a diploma in Physical Education. According to the petitioners, those candidates who were selected by the respondents are only having the qualification of a Bachelor in Physical Education. In other words, they have done their graduation in Physical Education and therefore, quality points which have been awarded to them for diploma in Physical Education have wrongly been awarded. This argument of the petitioners is wholly misconceived, as admittedly those who have been selected are having a qualification of graduation in Physical Education, which means that they have done their graduation in that very subject for which their services are required i.e. Physical Education. Admittedly their qualification which is a Degree is higher than the minimum requirement of a diploma. 3. Moreover, there is another anomaly in the petition inasmuch as the petitioners have not impleaded those persons who have been selected 2 and subsequently appointed on the posts of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in Physical Education, as stated above. 4. Be that as it may, since the gravamen of the arguments raised by the petitioner is itself misconceived, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 5.08.2010 Rathour