IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 192 (SS) of 2009 Anil Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Anil Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Anil Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioners were the candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Physical Education). They were having a degree in Physical Education know as B.P.Ed. The candidate of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that they do not have a qualification know as “Diploma in Physical Education”. The sole contention of the petitioners is that they have possessed higher qualification in the same stream and hence they could not be held to be disqualified. Meanwhile, after rejecting the contention of the petitioners, the respondents had appointed diploma holders as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Physical Education). 3. As admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the present matter is similar to the case of Writ Petition No. 95 (SS) of 2009 wherein it has been held that the petitioners (having degree in Physical Education) are qualified. While doing so, this Court had also directed that in case there are existing vacancies for Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Physical Education), the petitioners can be adjusted in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerela Public 2 Service Commission reported in [(2002) Supp 1 JT 85/(2002) 2 UJ 941]. As such, directions were issued to re-consider the case of the petitioners, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Writ Petition No. 95 (SS) of 2009. 4. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 25.11.2011 VKG