Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction upon the respondent to grant him admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the State Government issued an order dated 10.7.2007 which was modified on 13.7.2007 to provide Special B.T.C. Training to the B.Ed. degree holders. In compliance of the aforesaid Government Order the Principal of each District Institute of Education and Training issued advertisements inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for admission to Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007. A copy of the said advertisement is placed on record by petitioner as annexure -6 to the writ petition.

3. In pursuance of the said advertisement, it is stated that the petitioner submitted his applications in District Gorakhpur, Maharajganj and Sant Kabir Nagar. It is stated that alongwith the application form, the petitioner had submitted his statement of marks of different educational qualifications. The petitioner has collectively enclosed all the statement of marks as annexure-8 to the writ petition.

4. It is stated that the petitioner did his Bachelor of Physical Education Examination from Sri Narheri Mahavidyalaya, Narahi, Ballia, affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur which is recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education.

5. The case of the petitioner is that inadvertently, in the application form, he had given details of the marks of Bachelor of Physical Education Examination by adding the total marks awarded in theory and practical and accordingly specified that he has secured 608 marks out of 800 marks. The said details were mentioned by the petitioner in his application form, as he bonafidely believed that the norms of the Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004 are also applicable in 2007 Special B.T.C. Training Course. However, subsequently, the petitioner came to know that in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007, the total aggregate marks of each of the examination constituting Bachelor of Physical Education was required to be mentioned. Therefore, his correct marks were 1131 out of 1400 marks, but the marks were shown by him as 608 marks out of 800 marks. On account of said mistake, the petitioner’s quality point marks became less than cut of marks of which last candidate was selected. According to the petitioner, his marks were 249.90 i.e. above cut of marks.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has filed a counter-affidavit. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that in the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that the percentage of the marks obtained in High School, Intermediate, B.A. and B.Ed. including theory and practical marks aggregate of the percentage will be considered as quality point marks obtained by the petitioner. There was no ambiguity in the advertisement and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is also stated that on the basis of marks mentioned by the petitioner his quality point marks will be 245.11 while the last selected candidate’s mark was 246.17 marks and as such there is no illegality.

7. I have heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

8. Sri Khare submitted that the petitioner has secured total 1131 marks and he had annexed all the marksheets alongwith the application form and as such, the respondents ought to have considered his actual marks of Bachelor of Physical Education Examination which has been ignored by them. The respondents have relied only on the marks mentioned in the application form by the petitioner which has been inadvertently mentioned on the basis of pre-existing norms adopted by the State in respect of Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004. He further urged that from the mark sheet there was no doubt that the petitioner was above the cut of marks. However, respondent