Km. Pankaj and another vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Hon''ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Amendment application No. Nil of 2011 is also allowed. Let necessary amendment be incorporated in the writ petition during the course of the day in the memo of writ petition.

Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate with Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

The petitioners did their intermediate with "Drawing and Design". According to the petitioners, they were not being considered eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) "Art".

According to the respondents, the petitioners 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.