NAINITAL vs Sanjay Singh and others.

reference. Firstly, a bachelor(cid:146)s degree from a recognized university or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent. Secondly, Diploma in Physical Education. A close examination of the prescribed qualification postulates that the requirement of a bachelor(cid:146)s degree from a recognized University, or alternatively a bachelor(cid:146)s degree accepted as equivalent thereto by Government. The postulated Diploma qualification, however, stands on a different footing. The Rule does not mandate the qualifications of a Diploma from a specified 4 institution and therefore, the equivalence thereof is an irrelevant consideration. The rule only mandates the possession of the qualification of Diploma in Physical Education. The question therefore to be determined is, whether the respondents in this case, and others similarly situated as them, who had acquired the (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) qualification from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) possess the prescribed qualification. The answer to this is in the affirmative for two reasons. Firstly, the Government Order dated 18.11.1982 wherein the qualification of (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) was recognized as Diploma in Physical Education; and secondly, that (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) has been recognized as a Diploma in Physical Education by NCTE. Thus viewed, we are satisfied that (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) is liable to be treated as Diploma in Physical Education, for all intends and purposes. In fact, the instant aspect of the matter stands confirmed by a letter of the Director of Education, Uttarakhand dated 31.8.2007 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The conclusion recorded by us hereinabove, must be read in addition to the two findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Firstly, that the qualification of (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) is equivalent to the qualification of Diploma in Physical Education (inspite of the view expressed by us hereinabove, that the issue of equivalence is irrelevant to the present controversy). And secondly, persons possessing the same qualification i.e. 5 (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) have been treated as eligible by the State of Uttarakhand under the Rule extracted hereinabove, and have been appointed against the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) hither to before. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the Special Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the set of writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge including Writ Petition (SS) No. 580 of 2009, the only issue arising for consideration was, whether the petitioners in the said bunch of cases were eligible for appointment as Trained Graduate Assistant Teachers (Physical Education). The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4.9.2009 has already arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner who had approached this Court were eligible. Through the instant Special Appeal, we have examined the objections raised at the hands of the appellants, to the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 4.9.2009. Having considered the objections of the appellants, we have concurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4.9.2009, and as such, have concluded that the petitioners having the qualification of (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) were all eligible for consideration against the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) in response to an advertisements issued in June 2002, October 2004, and November 2004. Having so determined, there is no other issue that remains pending to be considered at the hands of the learned Single Judge. 6 In view of the above, while dismissing the instant Special Appeal, we hereby with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties prepone all the connected writ petitions listed for consideration on 9.9.2009, so as to take them on the board, for final disposal today itself. Having arrived at the conclusions recorded hereinabove we are satisfied that the petitioners in Writ Petition (SS) No. 614 of 2009, Writ Petition No. (SS) No. 580 of 2009, Writ Petition (SS) No. 604 of 2009, Writ Petition (SS) No. 635 of 2009 and Writ Petition (SS) No. 643 of 2009, possessing the qualification of (cid:147)Vyayam Ratna(cid:148) from (cid:147)Maharani Laxmi Bai Vyayam Mandir, Vyayam College, Jhansi(cid:148) must be deemed to possess the qualification of Diploma in Physical Education, and as such, are eligible to be considered for the posts of Trained Graduate Assistant Teachers (Physical Education). The aforesaid writ petitions are allowed. The selecting agency/appointing authority, is accordingly directed to consider their candidatures in the selection process for appointment to the posts of Trained Graduate Assistant Teachers (Physical Education), advertised in June 2002, October 2004 and November 2004. Special Appeal No. 2 of 2010 and Writ Petition (SS) No. 614 of 2009, Writ Petition No. (SS) No. 580 of 2009, Writ Petition (SS) No. 604 of 2009, Writ Petition (SS) No. 635 of 2009 and Writ Petition (SS) No. 643 of 2009 are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 9.2.2010 Avneet