JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appeals being connected, we are disposing of the same by a common judgment. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by a person who had applied for the post of Lecturer (Arts) in the college run by respondent No.4/Committee of Management. The writ petitioner was among the seven candidates, whose names have been sent by the 3rd respondent/Chief Education Officer to the Committee so that the Committee could proceed to interview them and consider them for appointment. The writ petitioner obtained 96.97 marks, whereas the party respondent, who is the appellant in Special Appeal No.02 of 2015, obtained 93.73 marks. In the interview, however, the party respondent obtained 17.60 marks, whereas the writ petitioner obtained 12.40 marks. Thus, the total marks obtained by the writ petitioner were 109.37, whereas the 5th respondent obtained 111.33 marks. Resultantly, the 5th respondent came to be appointed and she was given teaching assignment. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that she was entitled to more quality marks than were awarded by the Chief Education Officer. According to her, she was given only 8 marks at the rate of 2 marks for four years of teaching experience, whereas she was entitled to 24 marks, as she had 12 years’ teaching experience. Her further contention was while she was given quality marks for the post graduation in the subject, she was denied quality marks of 5 for her being in possession of M.Ed. degree. The learned Single Judge agreed with the writ petitioner that she was entitled to 24 marks by way of the experience she had. It is pertinent to notice here that the writ petitioner was originally appointed in a school in the former State of U.P. in the year 1999. Thereafter, it appears that she got mutual transfer, as a result of which she joined a Government School in the year 2008, i.e. 16.05.2008 in the State of Uttarakhand. It is pertinent to notice here that the writ petitioner was originally appointed in a school in the former State of U.P. in the year 1999. Thereafter, it appears that she got mutual transfer, as a result of which she joined a Government School in the year 2008, i.e. 16.05.2008 in the State of Uttarakhand. Apparently, it is accordingly that reckoning the experience she had as a teacher in a Government School in the State of Uttarakhand that she was awarded 8 marks at the rate of 2 marks per year, whereas, according to her, she had far more teaching experience as a result of her joining in the year 1999 in a Government School, no doubt in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttarakhand was born on 09.11.2000. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the contention of the appellants that the writ petitioner was not even entitled to be considered for appointment as she was a resident of the State of U.P. The resultant position was that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, interfered with the appointment of the party respondent and directed that the writ petitioner be appointed. It is being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are being lodged by the Committee of Management and by the 5th respondent/teacher, who was appointed. 2. We have heard Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/Committee of Management, Shri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri H.M. Bhatia, learned brief holder for the State. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the selected candidate/respondent No.5 has adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel. 3. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/Committee of Management would submit that in the first place having regard to the categoric statement contained in column No.6 in the application form filled by the writ petitioner in connection with the post in question, wherein she has squarely stated that she is a resident of the State of U.P. she should not have been even sponsored by the State Government. He took us to the policy of the Government in this matter, as contained in the communication dated 20th November, 2001, which we extract: “From, P.C. Sharma, Secretary, Uttaranchal Government. To, All the District Magistrates, Uttaranchal. Dehradun: Dated 20th November, 2001 General Administration Department. Subject: Domicile Certificate. He took us to the policy of the Government in this matter, as contained in the communication dated 20th November, 2001, which we extract: “From, P.C. Sharma, Secretary, Uttaranchal Government. To, All the District Magistrates, Uttaranchal. Dehradun: Dated 20th November, 2001 General Administration Department. Subject: Domicile Certificate. Sir, From time to time for various purposes, separately the arrangements have been made for issuance of Domicile Certificates in Uttaranchal, according to which, there exist a state of continuous myth and illusion. Taking into account this issue also, the myths remained to exist as to what is the purport of Domicile Certificate and for what purpose, its necessity should be there. After a constant consideration, on the issue of issuing the domicile certificates, the following decision has been taken for the issue of qualification and process:- 1. The title of certificate so issued should be Permanent Domicile Certificate. 2. This certificate would be issued to only those persons who are the residents of India and are the Bonafide Residents of Uttaranchal. In this category, those persons would exist whose Permanent Home is in Uttaranchal. Therein, those persons would also be included who are residing in Uttaranchal at least for 15 years or who have their Permanent Home in Uttaranchal but they are residing outside the State for the purpose of livelihood. The permanent home meant for such persons who are residing in Uttaranchal on ancestral basis/who have ancestral house in Uttaranchal. 3. To obtain a Domicile Certificate, a declaration on the part of the applicant would be required that for no other purpose, he has obtained the domicile from any other State. 4. As an exception of the arrangement made in point No.2, for specialized purposes, such persons would also be construed as Bonafide Residents who are regularly appointed on regular posts under the State Government or any its subordinate government/semi-government office; or in the Central Government or the Public Enterprises of Central Government on regular posts on regular basis, such employees working in Uttaranchal whose services are non-transferable outside the Uttarakhand, shall also be included in this category. The sufficient evidence to this effect shall also be required to be made available by the applicant. 5. In reference of admission in the educational institutions, the requirement of domicile certificate would be there where in some institute/specialized course, the seats/quota for the residents of Uttaranchal are reserved. The sufficient evidence to this effect shall also be required to be made available by the applicant. 5. In reference of admission in the educational institutions, the requirement of domicile certificate would be there where in some institute/specialized course, the seats/quota for the residents of Uttaranchal are reserved. In this regard, the necessary orders shall be issued separately from time to time. 2. I have also been desired to state that generally, requirement of such certificates arises in certain organizations viz. Army and Para Military Forces under the prescribed State Quota in case of recruitment as well as in reference of certain educational institutions/specialized courses for the prescribed State Quota. Apart from that, in certain services viz. Army, Para Military Forces and for persons of special category in Police, arrangement for relaxation in physical qualification has been made, wherefor the process already undergoing by the concerned Departments for certain certificates shall remain continued and these instructions shall not have any effect upon them. 3. According to the above directions, on receipt of application for the Domicile Certificate in Annexure-1 and on a considerate examination of the points mentioned therein, it shall be issued in terms of the format of Annex.-2. 4. It is thus, kindly requested that in respect of issuance of Domicile Certificate, the compliance of the above instructions and process should be ensured. Yours Truly, P.C. Sharma Secretary.” He would emphasize paragraph 2 thereof and contend that in so far as the writ petitioner does not fulfil the requirements contained therein as she has not been a resident for 15 years, she cannot claim to be a permanent resident which is one of the requirements for being appointed to the post in question. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel next submits that as per the format which is prescribed for claiming and granting 2 marks each for each year of teaching experience, the writ petitioner could not succeed. He drew our attention to the format and he would submit that the writ petitioner has not, admittedly, claimed the experience certificate in the said form. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel next submits that as per the format which is prescribed for claiming and granting 2 marks each for each year of teaching experience, the writ petitioner could not succeed. He drew our attention to the format and he would submit that the writ petitioner has not, admittedly, claimed the experience certificate in the said form. He also drew our attention to entry 41 of list II of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, to contend that since it relates to the State service, it fell within the power of State Legislature and, therefore, since the writ petitioner is claiming teaching experience based on her teaching undertaken in the former State of U.P., she could not be given the marks for the teaching experience she had in the former State of U.P. He would next contend that the learned Single Judge erred in granting 5 marks to the writ petitioner for having M.Ed. He would point out that in so far as the post of Lecturer is concerned, she is entitled only to marks obtained for the post graduation in the subject. The writ petitioner was granted requisite marks for the post graduation which, in this case, is M.A. (Arts) for the subject Therefore, she cannot claim further quality marks for M.Ed. qualification she possesses. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the writ petitioner is to be treated as a bonafide resident having regard to paragraph 1.4 of the Government Communication dated 20th November, 2001 as the writ petitioner was having a permanent non-transferable job since 2008 and at the time the notification was issued, she was entitled to be treated as a permanent resident. As far as the question relating to not claiming the teaching experience in the prescribed format, he submits that the writ petitioner was working in the State of U.P. and the certificate in the prescribed format could be issued only by the Principal of a college of the State of Uttarakhand for which it was issued but there is another certificate issued by the Chief Education Officer which encompasses her having teaching experience in the former State of U.P. also. 5. As far as award of quality marks of M.Ed. are concerned, it is submitted that the embargo against the reckoning marks for M.Ed. 5. As far as award of quality marks of M.Ed. are concerned, it is submitted that the embargo against the reckoning marks for M.Ed. is to be found only in respect of the post of Principal. In this regard, our attention is drawn to the following paragraph, the translated version of which is as follows:- “2. Where any person has applied on the post of Head of Institution and he bears the Masters Degree in more than one subjects, then the qualitative marks shall be awarded to him in that subject on the basis of Masters’ Degree wherein in comparison of other subject or subjects, he has comparatively good rank. The further rider is that if the applicant is only M.Ed. and if he does not have any Masters’ Degree, then for the M.Ed., he shall be awarded Qualitative Marks in the form of Masters’ Degree.” 6. Learned Government Counsel also would submit, in fact, that going by the scheme on account of the policy, there can be no embargo against the grant of marks for M.Ed. Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel also points out that the petitioner should not be granted relief for the reason that she is a person who got an illegal benefit as she took mutual transfer and it is in the teeth of the State Reorganization Act. 7. We have already stated the facts. As far as the plea of the appellants that the writ petitioner could not have been considered for the post of Lecturer as she was a resident of the State of U.P., we would discontinuance that plea on the basis of two reasons. Firstly, if that was the position the Government should not have sponsored her name and the Government should have rejected it. Here the Government has sponsored the name of the writ petitioner and what is more the Committee of Management, which is sought to be represented by Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel accepted the panel of names and interviewed her and, at this stage, it may not be fair or even legal to consider the contention. Secondly, even going by the policy which is made available, we notice that as an exception to paragraph 1 a person who is having appointment in the Government and is non-transferable outside the State, he will also claim to be a bonafide resident. Secondly, even going by the policy which is made available, we notice that as an exception to paragraph 1 a person who is having appointment in the Government and is non-transferable outside the State, he will also claim to be a bonafide resident. The writ petitioner has secured an employment in a Government School of Uttarakhand in the year 2008 and she was working and thereafter she has applied pursuant to the notification. Therefore, we would think that there is no merit in the said contention. 8 8. As far as the contention based on the relevant clause relating to giving of marks for post graduation qualification, we are again of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in the view taken. The relevant clause reads as follows:- “1. If the applicant has applied for the post of Lecturer, then the subject wherefor he is the applicant, he shall be awarded quality marks only for that subject on the basis of his Masters’ Degree.” 9. Undoubtedly, it says that the quality marks are to be given only for the post graduation in the subject in which the applicant makes the application in respect to the post of Lecturer. In this case, the post of Lecturer is in Arts subject. It means that the quality marks for the post graduation can be given when a person has post graduation in the concerned subject for which he is an aspirant as contended by Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate. There is absolutely nothing to indicate under the clause which is referred to us by the learned Senior Counsel that it prohibits the grant of quality marks for M.Ed. In fact, the clause which containes the rider, which is referred to is relevant only for the post of Head of Institution. It is only then that if he has M.Ed. and where he does not have a Master’s degree, is entitled to quality marks for M.Ed., but that restriction is not applicable in regard to the post of Lecturer. The policy contemplates grant of 5 marks for M.Ed. as the prescribed quality marks. If that is so, we see no reason why the writ petitioner was not entitled to quality marks for M.Ed. The policy contemplates grant of 5 marks for M.Ed. as the prescribed quality marks. If that is so, we see no reason why the writ petitioner was not entitled to quality marks for M.Ed. If the writ petitioner was given quality marks, on that ground itself the writ petition would succeed as he would obtain more marks than the party respondent and, therefore, it may not be unnecessary to further consider the question relating to the marks given for teaching experience. 10. Even in the matter of teaching experience, we notice that the certificate issued by the Chief Education Officer indicates that the writ petitioner was having teaching experience in the State of U.P. prior to her appointment in the year 2008 in the State of Uttarakhand. There is no prohibition against reckoning of the teaching experience of a teacher with reference to any geographical limit. It does not prohibit a teacher who is having teaching experience in any part of India reckoning her experience. The argument based on entry 41 does not appeal to us as that relates only to the scope of legislative power available to the States and we fail to see how the teaching experience of a teacher who has taught outside the State can not be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning teaching experience for appointment in another State. 11. As far as the format is concerned, apparently the certificate is one which is to be issued by a Principal in the State of Uttarakhand. That could not have been issued by a Principal in the State of U.P. and, therefore, going by the prescribed format, the petitioner could not have possibly claimed but there is a certificate issued by the Chief Education Officer of the State. That tends to show that the petitioner was having teaching experience as claimed by her in the writ petition. Therefore, nothing can detract from the petitioner being actually given marks for the teaching experience that she claimed in the writ petition but we would rather rest our decision on the basis of our answer to the contention that the writ petitioner cannot be granted quality marks for M.Ed. The writ petition, as already noted would succeed even on that basis. In such circumstances, both the appeals are found to be meritless and are dismissed. No order as to costs.