- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. All these four Special Appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 26-06-2004 passed by learned Sin gle Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Pe tition No. 1300 (S/s) of 2003 with Writ Petition No. 1341 (S/s) of 2003, Writ Pe tition No. 1379 (S/s) of 2003, Writ Peti tion No. 1418 (S/s) of 2003, Writ Peti tion No. 303 (S/s) of 2003, Writ Petition No. 1378 (S/s) of 2003, Writ Petition No. 1333 (S/s) of 2003 and Writ Petition No. . 1334 (S/s) of 2003 have been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent Regional Joint Director, Edu cation, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, issued an advertisement on June 24, 2002 for se lection and recruitment for 89 posts of Assistant Teachers (Physical Education ). The said advertisement was issued under the provisions of U. P Subordinate Edu cation (Trained Graduate Teachers) Serv ices Rules, 1983. According to the peti tioners, in the said advertisement, quali fications required for the post shown, were different from those mentioned in the Rules. The selection process and ap pointments made in pursuance thereof were challenged by the petitioners on the ground that Bachelor of Physical Educa tion was not the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education ). The impugned selection was challenged also on the ground that the quality points were wrongly awarded to the candidates. It was also alleged that one of the selected candidates, namely Dhananjay Malik was not domicile of Uttaranchal, and could not have been appointed against the post. In the counter affidavit filed be fore the learned Single Judge, the con testing respondents contended that the impugned selection and appointments were made in accordance with U. P Sub ordinate Education (T. G. T.) Rules, 1983 read with the amended rules of 1992. Quality points awarded to the candidates are also defended. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that there is no illegal ity in accepting Bachelor's degree in Physical Education instead of a Bach elor's degree in any discipline and a Di ploma in Physical Education. Learned Single Judge after hear ing the parties, quoting relevant provi sions of law, opined that the impugned selection was made in accordance with statutory rules, and dismissed all the eight writ petitions with the observation that the petitioners are at liberty to agitate their individual grievances before the State Government within three weeks of the judgment passed by him. Aggrieved by the judgment these Special Appeals have been preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court.
(3.) WE heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant academic qualification required under the law. Rule 8 of U. P Subordinate Educa tion (Trained Graduate Teachers) Rules, 1983 requires the following essential qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) : "bachelor Degree from a recognized University or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto and Diploma in Physical Education. " From the aforesaid required qualifi cation it is clear that a candidate is quali fied for post of Assistant Teacher (Physi cal Education) if he holds Bachelor De gree in any discipline from a recognized University but he must further possess Diploma in Physical Education. Copy of the advertisement (Annexure II) to the writ petition discloses that the required qualification for aforesaid post has been shown to be either Bachelor Degree in Physical Education from University or Di ploma in Physical Education for recog nized Institute. Certainly, the qualifica tion required shown is not what is pro vided under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules. The Rule nowhere provides ei ther Degree or Diploma in Physical Education. What is requires is Bachelor Degree from a recognized University and Diploma in Physical Education. As such, we are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellants that learned Single Judge has erred in law in holding that the selection and appointments in question were made in accordance with the rules. However, it is pertinent to men tion here that advertisement in question does indicate that selection and appoint ments are to be made in accordance with the Rules contained in U. P Subordinate Education (T. G. T.) Rules, 1983.;