JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi and Mr. Anand Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Basic Education Board, U.P. Prayagraj through its Secretary and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in the above writ petitions.

2. Writ-A No. 481 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a direction upon the respondents to forthwith allocate 1 mark each for Question nos. 116 and 146 after re-evaluating Booklet Series-‘C’ qua the petitioner and thereafter may appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher.

By means of Writ-A No. 482 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith allocate 1 mark each for Question Nos. 3, 35, 70 and 126 after re-evaluating Booklet Series-‘A’ qua the petitioner and thereafter may appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher.

Writ-A No. 484 has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith allocate one mark, which has been wrongly deducted pursuant to an order of a Writ Court dated 22nd October, 2019 passed in Writ-A No. 4235 of 2019 (Jyoti Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others) along with Writ-A no. 6420 of 2019 (Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and may also allocate one mark in respect of Question No. 21 and thereafter may appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher.

In Writ-A No. 486 of 2021, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the respondents be directed to forthwith allocate 1 mark each for Question Nos. 34 and 50 after re-evaluating Booklet Series-‘C’ qua the petitioner and thereafter may appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher.

By Writ-A No. 487 of 2021, a writ of mandamus has been prayed by the petitioner directing the respondents to forthwith select the petitioner after allocating marks to Question Nos. 76 and 79 in relation to Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 within stipulated period of time as this Court may desire and deem fit in the interest of justice.

Writ-A No. 491 has been filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith allocate 1 mark each for Question Nos. 18 and 133 after re-evaluating Booklet Series-‘A’ qua the petitioner and thereafter may appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher.

3. As the rudimentary realities and the permissible facets intricate are indistinguishable in this bunch of the writ petitions, they have been amalgamated and heard together and are being decided by this conjoint verdict. The particulars chronicled in Writ-A No.-481 of 2021 (Arsiya Bano Vs. State Of U.P. And Ors.) are being canned to be the leading case.

4. According to the petitioners, the realistic milieu of the case is as follows:-

The State of Uttar Pradesh, by making 20th amendment in the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, fixed a criteria for making appointments of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run and controlled by the U.P. Basic Education Baord, Prayagraj/Allahabad. Pursuant to the said amendment, a letter has been issued by the State inviting online applications from the prospective candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools against total 68,500 posts for which the State also proposed to conduct Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2018.

As per the provisions contained in the guidelines so issued, initially the cut off marks i.e. minimum qualifying marks was fixed at 45% for General and Other Backward Class category and 40% marks fixed for Scheduled Caste Category. The total marks of the Entrance Examination is 150 for which 150 questions provided in written examination so conducted by the State of Uttar Pradesh and on calculating 45% marks of which will be 67 marks and 40% marks will be 60 marks. As the petitioners possessed the degrees of Graduation and B.T.C. and also cleared T.E.T. examination, therefore, t