HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 376 of 2003 (SS) Hemlata Kaushik & another ……. Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …… Respondents Sri Promod Belwali, Advocate for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: 20th June 2008 Hon’be Rajesh Tandon J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection of Assistant Teacher Physical Education (LT Grade) made pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.6.2002 in respect of Garhwal region and directing the respondent to consider the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher by giving them quality point marks. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the respondents issued two separate advertisements on 17.6.2002 and 24.6.2002 in the newspapers for selection and recruitment of physical education teachers in Kumaun and Garhwal Divisions. The aforesaid advertisements were issued under U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules 1983. Advertisements were made for 56 posts in the Kumaun Division and 89 posts in Garhwal Division. The petitioners have stated that in the 2 advertisement issued for the Garhwal region the educational qualification is different than those provided in the rules. The petitioners have submitted that after a period of about one year on 22.6.2003 a list of 93 selected candidates for Garhwal region was published in news daily ‘Dainik Jagran’. The petitioners have contended that the entire selection was made in violation of the rules. The petitioners have assailed the process of appointment on the grounds that in the advertisement issued for the Garhwal region on B.P.Ed. Degree was advertised as educational qualification treating it both as academic and professional qualification, whereas according to rules B.P.Ed. degree is not a recognized qualification. The petitioners have also stated that benefit of post graduation degree in chemistry and Sanskrit has not been given to the petitioners as the respondents have not given quality point marks to them for their post graduate degree. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been contended by the respondents that the appointments of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade was to be made in accordance with U.P. Subordinate Education Service Rules 1983, together with amended rules of 1992. The respondents have submitted that the candidates were allotted the marks in theory and teaching. In the rules, there is no provision that the allocation of marks in practical and as such, quality points of the teaching was allotted. The respondents have also submitted that the appointments were made in accordance with the service rules and there was no illegality in the selection of the assistant teachers. The respondents have stated that the B.P.Ed. Degree holders were allotted quality points of graduation degree as well as physical education diploma in pursuance of Government order. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioners have submitted that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 20.6.2004 passed in Writ petition No. 1300 of 2003, Prakash Chandra Maithani vs. State & others. In the case Prakash Chandra Maithani (supra) this Court has held as under: The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee. The entire selection procedure cannot be thrown merely due to difference in the advertisement at two places. Selection of candidates was made strictly in accordance with the rules prescribed under U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules 1983, as amended in 1992 and the petitioners have failed to prove that there was violation of any mandatory provision of the statute. No other point has been raised by either of the parties if they are affected in their selection on the merit and if respondents have proceeded in violation of the statute. So far as emphasis on advertisement is concerned I find no merit in the contention of the petitioners. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to agitate their individual grievances before the State Government through the Secretary, Education by filing representations within three weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this order, which shall be disposed of within a month by reasoned order.” 4 Thus the present writ petition is decided in terms of the order dated 26.6.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1300 of 2003 (SS), Prakash Chandra vs. State & others. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Dated: 20.6.2008 Rajesh Tandon, J. *Dhyani