Point of Law : As delay in disposal of the writ petitions would further entail delay in conclusion of the process of selection.

ORDER :

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of special appeals and writ petitions. The issue for consideration before this Court is regarding rejection of claim of the candidates, who had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School. The advertisement for the same was issued on December 5, 2018 and the select list was notified on May 12, 2020. The candidates were directed to report at the respective districts for which their selection was made. During the course of counselling, their certificates were to be checked. In the said process, the candidature of number of candidates was rejected as it was found that there were discrepancies in the marks filled up by them in on-line applications as compared to the marks mentioned in the mark-sheets produced by them during counselling.

2. Some of the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which the candidates are in appeals whereas in some cases, the writ petitions were allowed against which the Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') is in appeal.

3. In three special appeals bearing Special Appeal Nos. 98, 835 and 845 of 2022, interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the candidates in the writ petition bearing Writ-A Nos. 15350, 8525 and 6839 of 2021, are under challenge. As delay in disposal of the writ petitions would further entail delay in conclusion of the process of selection and appointment, the aforesaid writ petitions were directed to be listed before this Court along with aforesaid appeals and the argument of the same have also been heard. Another writ petition bearing Writ-A No. 16905 of 2021 is already tagged with the bunch as identical questions are involved in the same.

4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the candidates is that, in terms of Government Order dated March 5, 2021, the candidature of a candidate is not required to be cancelled in case the marks filled up by him/her in an on-line application form is at a disadvantageous position, while preparing the merit list. In the case in hand, as per the marks filled by the candidates in their on-line applications, the percentage of marks was shown less as compared to the actual marks secured by them.

5. This issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 titled as Jyoti Yadav and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on April 8, 2021 and in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 378 of 2021 titled as Rahul Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on June 29, 2021 wherein the validity of the aforesaid Government Order dated 05.03.2021 was upheld and it was opined therein that in case the marks filled up by the candidates, cause disadvantage to them as compared to the actual marks obtained, the candidature of such candidates is not to be cancelled. Hence the cases of such candidates, who are before this Court, either in the writ petitions or in appeals, deserve to be reconsidered by the competent authority.

6. On the other hand, the argument raised by learned counsel for the Board is that if there is any error in filling up the form by a candidate, he cannot be allowed to make any correction. Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021, clearly provides that in such a situation, the candidature is required to be cancelled. The candidate could be given benefit only in case there was error committed by the Board or University. It is further submitted that selection process is already complete and appointments have been made.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the bunch of appeals and writ petitions, we are not proposing to enter into the facts of each and every case as, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that there has not been proper appreciation of facts by the competent authority while rejecting the candidature of the candidates on account of which they have approached this Court. The State itself found that there were some errors