IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates should not be penalized for minor discrepancies in reported marks if such discrepancies do not affect the overall merit list, as per the provisions of the relevant government orders.

JUDGMENT :

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) :

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the orders dated 14.09.2022 passed by District Basic Education Officer, District Badaun (Annexure No. 15) in interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a suitable order or direction in nature of mandamus and directing to respondents to allow to petitioner for work of the post of Assistant Teacher and pay salary month to month from due date without any interruption in interest of justice according to law.

(iii) …………….”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the State Government invited application for filling up 69,000/-post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools by publishing advertisement. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner, having requisite qualification, applied for the same. In the said application, he has specifically mentioned the obtained number in academic and training alongwith High School Marks as 324/600. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 06.01.2019 and the petitioner has been declared successful by obtaining 64.23 per cent. Further, on 04.12.2020, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher. In pursuance thereof, petitioner joined his services on 01.02.2021 in the institution allotted to him. Thereafter, some complaint was made against the petitioner and consequent thereof, notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted reply specifically stating therein that in the High School Marks, against the Mathematics, grace mark was given and since the petitioner was not aware as to grace marks that the same will not be added in total score. Thereafter, on 14.09.2022, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has mentioned the total marks in the application including the grace marks, which is in total 324/600 and if the grace marks i.e. 8 is subtracted, then it comes to 316 out of 600. He further submits that in the selection list, the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 1673, where the percentage of obtained marks is mentioned as 64.23. He next submits that if the grace marks is reduced, then total percentage comes to 64.093. He further submits that since the person next to the petitioner, who is at Serial No 1674 and whose marks is 63.93 per cent, therefore, the merit list as a whole will not change.

5. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two Government Orders dated 04.12.2020 & 05.03.2021. He refers Clauses 2 & 3 of Point No.2 of G.O. dated 04.12.2020 and submits that the intent of Government is very clear that if the aspirants have filled the higher marks than the obtained marks incorrectly, which does not affect the merit list, then the selection of such candidate will not be cancelled. He further refers Clause Nos. 2 to 4 of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 and submits that the intent of the Government is very clear where the merit list in either of the cases i.e. mentioning the lower numbers or the higher numbers, if the merit is not changed and if the same is changed, after obtaining affidavit, no future claim will be made by the candidate.

6. He next refers Clause 2 (1) of G.O. dated 05.03.2021, which also clarifies the said decision specifically satisfy that where the candidate, if without any basis has mentioned higher marks than obtained marks, the selection of such candidate may be cancelled. He submits that in the case in hand, there is a reason for mentioning higher marks awarded to the petitioner, therefore, the total sum was mentioned as 324 (including eight grace marks) instead of 316. He further submits that this fact is also not clear to the District Basi