- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. All these four special appeals, pre ferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27-03-2006, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in four writ petitions; Writ Petition No. 1540 (S/s) of 2004, Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2002 (S/b), Writ Petition No. 495 of 2005 (S/s) and Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2005 (S/s ). By said impugned order learned Single Judge has directed the present appel lants to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners for appointment as As sistant Teachers L. T. Grade, against the vacant posts.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts in the Writ Petition No 1540 of 2004 (S/s) filed by the petition ers Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, Jaipal Singh, Vipin Kumar, Mukesh Kumar S/o Chotey Singh, Hemant Kumar, Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhishma Singh, Sanjeev Kumar and Geeta Devi, are that the services of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade in Government Institutions are governed under the provisions of U. P Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Teachers) Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1983 ). Part IV of the Rules of 1983 provide the academic qualifications required for the post of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade in different disciplines including Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade for Art subject. Pe titioners' case is that they fulfill the quali fication as they passed their High School and Intermediate examination with draw ing and also possessed certificate of In termediate Grade Drawing Examination issued by Government of Maharashtra. Till 1992 Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination of Government of Maharashtra was given equivalence for the purposes of qualification required for appointment in C. T. Grad (to teach stu dents of 6th, 7th and 8th class ). Later on C. T. Grade merged into L. T. Grade, which consists of the teachers who teach students of 9th and 10th standard, as such C. T. Grade became dying cadre. It is further stated by the petitioners that the certificate of Intermediate Grade Drawing Examination (hereinafter re ferred as I. G. D. E.) issued by State of Maharashtra is recognised under U. P In termediate Education Act, 1921, as such same cannot be treated unrecognized for the purposes of applying for the appoint ment of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade in the Government Schools. In 2002, Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Mandal and Garhwal Mandal of State of Uttarakhand got published advertisement inviting applications for L. T. Grade teachers including for the subject of Art. But the petitioners' applications were not considered for said recruitment on the ground that I. G. D. E. is not a recognised certificate for the purposes of recruitment of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade Art, Again on 22-10-2004 another advertise ment came for filling fresh vacancies in the L. T. Grade including for the subject of Art and the petitioners applied once again for the post. However, the petition ers are being deprived of their entitle ment to be considered therefore the writ petition is filed by the petitioners seek ing mandamus directing the respondents to recognize I. G. D. E. as one of the equivalent qualification for the appoint ment of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade. A further mandamus has been sought commanding respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for said post, In the Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2002 (S/b) filed by Kailash Chandra Pandey, Kastuba Nand, Kamlesh Kumar and Rajendra Singh Mehta, similar issue is raised in respect of advertisement of 2002 and similar reliefs are sought. In Writ Petition No. 495 of 2005 (S/s), pe titioner Smt. Ritu Raj Sharma has raised similar issue on the similar ground as mentioned above in respect of advertise ment of 2004. And in Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2005 (S/s), writ petitioners Veer Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Arbind Kumar have raised similar issue in re spect of advertisement of 2004 and sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners for ap pointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade in Art. In short in all the four writ petitions same question of law was involved whether I. G. D. E. is a qualification recognised under the Rules applicable for the appointment of L. T. Grade teachers in Art in the Gov ernment Schools or not.
(3.) IN the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions on behalf of respond ents no. 2 to 4, it is admitted that ap pointments were made to the post of Assistant Teachers C. T. Grade (Art) con sidering the I. G. D. E. as recognised qualification. But it is stated that said appointments were not in the L. T. Grade and were not made under U. P Subor dinate Educational (Trained Graduate Teachers) Rules, 1983. It is further stated that the impugned appointments are to be made under the Rules 1983. As to the I. G. D. E. being recognised under the Rules of U. F INtermediate Education Act, 1921, it is stated that said Rules apply to recognised non Gov ernment INstitutions while the petition ers are seeking appointments in the Government INstitutions. It is further stated by the answering respondents that there is no mention of I. G. D. E. in the Rules of 1983, as compared to Rules framed under U. P INtermediate Educa tion Act, 1921, recognizing I. G. D. E. as a requisite qualification for L. T. Grade. It is further stated in the counter affida vit that the Rules of 1983 are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of INdia and have the force of law. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1540 of 2004 (S/s), copy of appointment letters dated 24-08-1998 is filed wherein three persons appointed in the L. T. Grade hold certifi cate of I. G. D. E. This supplementary af fidavit has been controverted by filing supplementary counter affidavit by the respondents and it is stated that Sunil Chandra Tamta and Satya Vratt, pos sessed Art as a subject in their Bachelor of Arts Examination. The third example of Pal Singh Kamboj, it is stated that he was having technical drawing in Interme diate as such his case was also covered under the Rules of 1983, while the peti tioners do not fulfill said qualifications.;