HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 39255 of 2017 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. Present writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education, Service Selection Board,wherein the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not fulfilled qualification as per the Appendix-A of Chapter II of the U.P. Act No. II of 1921. As per the abovesaid rules, qualifications would be higher education or intermediate education with Technical Art, but the petitioner has passed intermediate examination with Art subject (drawing and designing). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to notice of Court that identical issue was decided by this Court in Writ A No. 8388 of 2020 and batch, vide order dated 30.11.2022, with following observations: "49. Therefore, the present petitions deserve to be allowed. As to the relief to be granted as first noted, petitioners involved in Writ-A No. 8388 of 2020 (Mukesh Tiwari and 16 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), Writ-A No. 8389 of 2020 (Sanjeev Kumar and 8 Others Vs. The Principal Secretary U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board and Another), Writ-A No. 9453 of 2020 (Abha Mishra and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), Writ-A No. 9487 of 2020 (Dhirendra Pratap Ojha and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Writ-A No. 11302 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board and Another) have already been granted opportunity of interview. Eight of them namely Govind Malik, Rajendra Kumar, Madhulika Kumari, Sanjeev Kumar, Mannu Kumar Bharti, Pooja, Km. Arti Verma and Madhulika Kashyap have already been declared successful. As to the other petitioners, to whom interview was granted but they have been declared unsuccessful in the final result, no further relief is required to be granted by the Court inasmuch as they have already been interviewed and were not successful. To that extent and for those petitioners, the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : A.K.Sinha, Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivam Yadav, Vibhanshu Vaibhav Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 50. As to the surviving petitions and petitioners, it is provided: (i) the Board may first verify if such of the petitioners hold a High School certificate with 'Chitrakala'/Arts as one of the subjects. Petitioners who may be found holding such certificates, their results for the written examination be declared by the Board forthwith i.e. not later than 31.12.2022. (ii) upon declaration of that result of the written examination, such of the petitioners who may have met the original cut-off declared by the Board may also be called for fresh interviews on or before 31.01.2023. (iii) the ''Board' may then proceed to prepare, revise and declare the result for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) by 15.2.2023. (iv) thereupon, Select Panel and Wait List for selection on the post of Assistant Teacher TGT (Arts) may be revised/finalised and published latest by 20.2.2023. (v) the original panel would stand revised accordingly, placing all remaining selected/wait-listed candidates against appropriate revised merit position. It would include the eight petitioners already declared successful namely Govind Malik, Rajendra Kumar, Madhulika Kumari, Sanjeev Kumar, Mannu Kumar Bharti, Pooja, Km. Arti Verma and Madhulika Kashyap, however, at a revised merit position, commensurate to their relative standing, in order of merit. (vi) those thus declared selected as per the revised/finalised result may be allowed to participate in the process of counseling such that they may register their choice of institution/s between 25.2.2023 to 28.2.2023. The allocation of appropriate institution may be done strictly in order of their revised/final merit position. (vii) all surviving vacancies, if any, may be filled against the wait listed candidates (as revised). (viii) as to counselling, detailed directions have already been issued in Writ - A No. 14121 of 2022 (Manoj Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P & 3 Ors.) on 29.09.2022. Those would thus stand adapted (in terms of this order) only for the post of Assistant Teacher TGT (Art). All further timelines (contained therein) would stand extended accordingly." 4. Based on the above, the Court has categorically held that the petitioner was declared successful and those who are having chitrakala/arts, are entitled. 5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that identical issue was also decided by this Court in Writ A No. 63374 of 2012 vide order dated 09.01.2013 and in fact, as against the said order, respondents have also filed Special Appeal, which was also dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions, the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent no.4 to consider the qualifications of the petitioner, based on the observations made in the abovesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If petitioner comes within the purview of the abovesaid observations, the authorities may consider his candidature for employment. WRIA No. 39255 of 2017 2 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 9, 2025 Noman WRIA No. 39255 of 2017 3 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad