JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Fairness is the soul of any competitive examination. Any compromise of merit would betray confidence and trust of meritorious candidates on examination system and in case some irregularity is detected during process of examination and there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of justice and to maintain fairness, an endeavour has to be taken to cure it. This is what happened in facts and circumstances of present cases.

2. Petitioners have participated in selection for recruitment of 68500 Assistant Teachers in Basic Education Department in the year 2018. After examination, petitioners were in the list of selected candidates (41556) in a result declared as 16th August, 2018. Petitioners thereafter appeared in counselling, their documents were verified, they were appointed and later on they joined in September, 2018 on probation of one year. Petitioners appointments were cancelled by means of similarly worded orders impugned in writ petitions and one of such impugned order dated 07.09.2019 annexed in leading writ petition, i.e., Writ-A No. 15229 of 2019, is reproduced hereinafter:

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate and Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, Sri Bashisth Narayan Pandey, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates for different petitioners, submitted that above referred impugned order does not discloses any reason(s) for cancellation of appointments of respective petitioners as well as Government Order dated 05.10.2018 and subsequent Circular dated 16.08.2019 would not provide any power to concerned respondent to pass impugned orders. On basis of pleadings they submitted that respondents have no power to re-evaluate the answer booklets of petitioners as relevant rules and procedure does not permit to do so. Learned counsel have submitted that in absence of any procedure prescribed, entire exercise to recheck answer booklets was illegal and impermissible, therefore, impugned orders cannot survive.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that both Government Orders dated 05.10.2018 and 16.08.2019, referred in impugned orders, do not deal with issue of re-examination of answer booklets, rather details mentioned in said Government Orders would indicate that exercise undertaken was contrary to procedure prescribed. For reference both Government Orders are reproduced hereinafter:

5. The above referred Government Order and Circular have declared that:

(i) Total 1,07,865 answer booklets were examined.

(ii) On examination of 1,07,865 answer booklets difference was found in 343 answer booklets.

(iii) Out of above referred 343 booklets-

(a) despite difference result of 239 candidates was remained unaffected;

(b) due to rechecking 51 candidates, who were earlier declared failed, were found successful; and,

(c) remaining 53 candidates, who were earlier declared successful, were found failed on rechecking.

The petitioners before this court are from above referred batch of 53 candidates.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance on judgments passed by this Court in Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC:9510-DB and Ram Naresh Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. - 2017:AHC:185314. Relevant paragraphs of the judgments are reproduced hereinafter:

Omveer Singh (supra)

“10. In the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 impugned in Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, the learned Single Judge has observed and recorded finding to the effect that Petitioner-Appellant Rajveer Singh and petitioner non-appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra have secured 53 marks in first evaluation while in the second evaluation Rajveer Singh Yadav has got 46 marks and Suresh Chandra have got 45 marks.

11. Relevant part of judgment and order impugned reads as under:

"... Answer sheet in question has not at all been checked as not even a single mark is there which would reflect that a