Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, J.
Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1074 of 2022
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Education Board - Appointment as Assistant Teacher - Petitioner applied for such selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher in a basic school - He was selected and called for counseling - During counseling it was found that there was some discrepancy in marks mentioned by him in his application form pertaining to B.Ed degree and those mentioned in his original mark sheet - Accordingly appointment letter was not issued - On a Government Order was issued as there were several candidates who had incorrectly filled-up form some of whom had mentioned lesser marks than what they had secured actually just as in case of petitioner - Accordingly a procedure was prescribed by said Government Order for dealing with such cases - Based on said Government Order which in fact has been taken into consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition State of U.P. and Others where Apex Court directed concerned authorities to place cases of petitioners therein for consideration in terms of Office Memorandum District Level Committee scrutinized cases of all such candidates including petitioner and opined that petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment - by offering appointment to the petitioner and by interfering with the impugned order, inter se merits of the candidate does not at all get affected in view of the undertaking already given by the petitioner. Para 21.
Finding of the Court: Decision rendered in has not been considered by Division Bench judgment whereas the same has been considered by another Division Bench in case as already discussed and quoted - Most importantly an affidavit was sought from petitioner at time of offering appointment to him which was submitted a copy of which is annexed at according to which he had given an undertaking that he would abide by disadvantageous position in which he had put himself and would not claim any advantage of higher marks which he had actually obtained so that merit of candidates inter se at selection is not disturbed - Therefore by offering appointment to petitioner and by interfering with impugned order inter se merits of candidate does not at all get affected in view of undertaking already given by petitioner.
Finding of the Court: Writ Petition is Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJAN ROY, J.
1. The petitioner who was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in a basic school has challenged the order dated 19.06.2021 by which his selection was reviewed and the same was cancelled leading to passing of an order of the same date i.e. 19.06.2021, cancelling his appointment, as also the subsequent order dated 23.11.2021 passed by Secretary, Basic Education Board on the representation of the petitioner in pursuance to judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2021 passed in his writ petition filed earlier.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner applied for such selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher in a basic school in 2019. He was selected and called for counseling. During counseling, it was found that there was some discrepancy in the marks mentioned by him in his application form pertaining to B.Ed degree and those mentioned in his original marksheet. Accordingly, the appointment letter was not issued. On 04.12.2020, a Government Order was issued as there were several candidates who had incorrectly filled-up the form, some of whom had mentioned lesser marks than what they had secured actually just as in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, a procedure was prescribed by the said Government Order for dealing with such cases. Based on the said Government Order dated 04.12.2020 which, in fact, has been taken into consideration by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1308 of 2020, Abhinav Kardam vs. State of U.P. and Others, where the Apex Court directed the concerned authorities to place the cases of the petitioners therein for consideration in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 and 10.12.2020, the District Level Committee scrutinized cases of all such candidates including the petitioner and opined that the petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment. Accordingly, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2021.
3. At this stage, it is not out of place to mention as to what was the discrepancy in the marks of the petitioner. Page No. 82 of the petition is the marksheet of B.Ed pertaining to the petitioner and according to it, he had secured total marks of 757 out of 1100 in the written examination. In addition to it, he had secured 85 out of 100 in practical. However, on a bare perusal of the marksheet, it is apparent that the marks secured by him in practical examination were referred as 'Final Practice of Teaching' and these marks were mentioned below the grand total. According to petitioner's counsel, this confused the petitioner and accordingly, while filling-up the form, he mentioned the marks obtained in written examination as 585 out of 900 and in the practical examination 172 out of 200. This he did by adding up certain marks which had been given out of 100 in the marksheet. The total marks mentioned was 757 out of 1100 obviously as the marksheet mentioned these marks as the grand total. The petitioner did not realize that marks for the practical examination were separate and in fact, he had secured 85 out of 100 and these 85 marks should have been added by him to 757 marks as he had actually secured 842 marks. But he mentioned only 757 marks as the grand total based on the entry in the marksheet.
4. Considering the very format of the marksheet, which was quite confusing, the University issued a notice dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure-11) that the written examination comprised of 1100 marks whereas the practical examination was of 100 marks and directed the System Manager, Computer Center to upload the same on the website of the University and a direction was also given to the Deputy Registrar, Public Information to dispose of the matters in the light of the aforesaid.
5. So, what comes out is that it is not a case where the petitioner had mentioned more marks than he had actually obtained. In fact, he had mentioned 85 marks less than what he had actually obtained because of the aforesaid confusion. Therefore, evidently no a
on a reading of the Government Order and Circulars applicable it is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantageous position as stated above his candidature shall not be ca....
Candidates who fill incorrect marks that disadvantage them should not have their candidature cancelled, while those who gain an advantage through errors may face disqualification.
The candidature of a candidate is liable to be cancelled only if the candidate puts himself/herself in an advantaged position by committing a mistake while submitting the online application form.
Appellant has failed to make out a case for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to rectify the mistake made by her in her online submission
Deliberate inflation of academic marks in application forms constitutes material misrepresentation, invalidating employment contracts under established legal principles of public trust and recruitmen....
An educational marksheet cannot be deemed forged without proper inquiry and substantial evidence, while public appointment must adhere to merit-based selection principles under natural justice standa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
