IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 566 (SS) of 2011 Km. Monika …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the Technical Board. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the Technical Board. 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, being similar in nature, stands allowed in terms of Writ Petition no. 900 (SS) of 2011. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 26.09.2011 VKG