2025:UHC:2155-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.176 of 2017 Sanjay Singh ...Appellant Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents with Special Appeal No.178 of 2017 Diwakar Prasad Semwal ...Appellant Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents with Special Appeal No.179 of 2017 Rakesh Kumar Semwal ...Appellant Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents with Special Appeal No.180 of 2017 Dinesh Payal ...Appellant Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents with Special Appeal No.181 of 2017 Rajesh Kumar Semwal ...Appellant Vs. 1 2025:UHC:2155-DB State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents Presence: Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for appellants. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for State of Uttarakhand. Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. These special appeals have been filed by writ petitioners, challenging the judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed in WPSS No.2218 of 2016 and other connected petitions. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these special appeals, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by a common judgment. 3. Appellants applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) Physical Education, pursuant to advertisements, issued by Regional Joint Director of Education, Pauri and Nainital. Since appellants were not selected and appointed, therefore, they approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions seeking a direction to appoint them as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) Physical Education; their writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 12.04.2017. Operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “Petitioners participated in the selection process for appointment of L.T. Grade Teachers in the year 2004 pursuant to advertisement annexure 4 to the writ petition. 2 2025:UHC:2155-DB Petitioners appeared in the written examination. They have secured less quality marks than the cut-off-marks as per details given in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. Accordingly, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.” 4. Appellants contended that they possessed post graduate degree in different subjects, however, they were denied marks for post graduation, while other candidates, who were selected, were given bonus marks for post graduate degree, which resulted in their selection. It is further contended that since appellants are similarly placed as other candidates with post graduate degree, therefore, differential treatment meted out against them, is unjust and unsustainable. 5. Learned State Counsel however, refers to the provisions contained in The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983. Appendix (D) to the said Rules lays down the formula for determining quality points in the selection. As per said formula, a candidate with post graduate degree is entitled to 15 additional marks. Learned State Counsel submits that other candidates, who were given quality point marks for post graduate degree, were having post graduate degree in the same subject, namely, Physical Education, while appellants were having post graduate degree in subjects other than Physical Education, therefore, appellants were rightly not given any marks for post graduate degree. 3 2025:UHC:2155-DB 6. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since Rules provide for additional 15 marks to a candidate for post graduate degree, therefore, the interpretation given by the authorities to the said provision that such additional marks would be given only to such candidates, who have post graduate degree in the same subject/discipline cannot be faulted. Since the appellants were having post graduate degree in a different subject, therefore, the grievance raised by them against non-awarding of additional marks for post graduate degree, is without any substance. The post graduate degree in the subject, in which a candidate seeks appointment, enhances his employability as a teacher as he then is better equipped to impart education to his students. 7. However, learned counsel for appellants submits that some vacancies, which were advertised, in the year 2002 and 2004, are still available in both Kumaun and Garhwal region. If that is so, appellants shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority by making a representation. The representation, if made, shall be considered and decided as per law, within four months of its making. 8. Accordingly, special appeals stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.03.2025 Arti 4 ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.03.25 15:37:05 +05'30'