The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's incorporation of marks in the application form was a bona fide mistake, and she had fulfilled the educational qualifications required for the post of an assistant teacher in a madrasah.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 27th February, 2019 passed by the respondent no.4.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that after passing the Pre-Board examination conducted by the Sambnagiya Purba Madhyamik Pariksha of Secondary Education in the year 1982, i.e. School Leaving Examination (VIII), the Class-IX Examination in the year 1983 from Kamala Nehru Ucchatara Madhyamik Examination in the year 1984, the petitioner passed the old Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1985 (XI) conducted by Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education (in short, the said M.P. Board). Thereafter, the petitioner obtained her B.Ed. degree, graduate degree and the post-graduate degree. In the midst thereof, upon emerging to be successful in a selection process, she got appointment to the post of para-teacher in Bio-Science in Nashipur High Madrasah (H.S) in the year 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the Bengali language course in West Bengal Rabindra Mukta Sansad (in short, the said Sansad) and completed the same in the year 2008. In the year 2014, West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission (in short, said commission) initiated the 6th State Level Selection Test for Assistant/U.G. teachers in Madrasahs (in short, 6th SLST). The petitioner applied for participation in the said SLST on 14th February, 2014 for the post of an assistant teacher in science group (bengali medium) under general category. Surprisingly, a candidate securing lower marks than the petitioner was empanelled. The petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with a request to intimate the exact marks obtained by her and the marks obtained by the last empanelled candidate. In reply thereto, it was intimated by a letter dated 6th September, 2018 that the last empanelled candidate obtained 60.33 marks and the petitioner obtained 67.938 marks. It was also intimated that the petitioner’s candidature has been cancelled for furnishing wrong information in the application form. In the application form, the petitioner inadvertently stated that she had obtained ‘483 marks’ in old H.S. (XI) in place and stead of ‘463 marks’. However, the percentage of marks as incorporated in the application form, was calculated on the basis that she had secured ‘463 marks’. Stating such fact, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27th July, 2018 to the respondent no.4 with a prayer for appointment. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.30 (W) of 2019 which was disposed of by an order dated 24th January, 2019 directing the respondent no.4 herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 27th November, 2018. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2019 was passed by the respondent no.4.

3. Mr. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by the order dated 24th January, 2019 passed in W.P. No.30 (W) of 2019, the matter was relegated to the respondent no.4 for consideration of two issues. First, as to whether the petitioner qualified in the first Secondary Level Examination or School Leaving Examination. Second, as to whether incorporation of the marks in the application form by the petitioner was a bona fide mistake. He contends that the petitioner pursued the Old H.S. course under the said M.P. Board and passed the old H.S. Examination in the year 1985. It is only subsequent thereto, the said M.P. Board introduced 10+2 system. In 1985 there was no 10+2 system, the candidates used to appear in the old Higher Secondary Class-XI Examination. The 10+2 course was conducted by the M.P. Board after 1985. In support of such contention he has drawn the attention of this Court to a notification dated 16th July, 1986 and replies dated 18th June, 2019 and 19th March, 2019, as annexed at pages 14 to 17 of the affidavit-in-reply.

4. He submits that the petitioner did not intentionally incorpo