Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Training Course- 2008 showing his marks in B.Ed. examination as 323 out of 600 in theory and 378 out of 400 in practical. He was student of B.Ed. in Desh Deepak Adarsh Mahavidhyalaya Tendua Mafi Beekapur, Faizabad. The institution is affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Audh Vishwavidhyalaya, Faizabad (U.P.). The last date of submission of the application for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2008 was 20th February, 2009. The petitioner applied for the said training course alongwith all the documents and testimonials he possessed till then. Later on, it appears that the petitioner appeared in some back paper and examination result was declared on 2nd September, 2009 and his marks in theory were increased from 323 to 339 out of 600.

3. In the light of the result of back paper, the representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.2009, requesting the Director, S.E.R.T.I. Nishatganj, Lucknow to consider his candidature based on the marks he had obtained in back-paper of B.Ed., the result whereof declared on 2nd September, 2009, is pending and the counsel for the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide his representation taking into account the increased marks of the petitioner in back paper.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1920 of 2010, (Ankit Kumar Tiwari and another v. State of U.P. and others) contended that he is also entitled for the same direction.

5. Having considered the submission carefully, I do not find myself to agree with him. It is admitted that the petitioner was supposed to furnish full details of his educational qualification, marks obtained therein etc. alongwith his application form, the last date whereof was 20th February, 2009. Admittedly, till then the petitioner had the documents showing his theory marks in B.Ed. as 323 and that is what he submitted alongwith application form.

6. The short question, which is to decide is, whether the subsequent event whereby the petitioner has got higher marks, can be treated to relate back with the initial examination so as to make the effect of back paper and the revised marks entitle the incumbent to claim benefit thereof in a case where the last date of submission of the application form or submission of any document had already expired.

7. There can be two circumstances in which the marks obtained by a candidate in his examination stands revised. Sometimes where provisions exist, the candidate apply for scrutiny or revaluation of his answer sheets if he suspects anything wrong in the marks disclosed in his result and if his complaint is found true and on revaluation or scrutiny the marks obtained by the candidate are declared increased to some extent, there would be no difficulty at all to relate back the effect of such scrutiny or revaluation, inasmuch as, here is a case of mistake of fact or declaration by the Examining Body itself and for fault of the Examining Body, the candidate cannot be made to suffer because this is admitted by the Examining Body that it has committed mistake in declaration of lower marks though the candidate was entitled of higher marks and they rectify the same.

8. In my view, in such a case the mark sheet issued to the candidate would stand corrected from the date it was originally issued and even if last date for submission of an application form or a document has expired and such an eventuality takes place on a later date, the candidate can be given the benefit of such increased marks and the authority would be entitled to consider the revised mark sheet. In fact it is a case of reappraisal of marks itself and the original mark sheet issued to the candidate becomes non est from its inception and stands substituted by the revised mark sheet. Whether the candidate apply for scrutiny or revaluation before t