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.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.-Heard Shri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The instant intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2024 (Rajbanshi v. State of U.P. and others). For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 29.3.2024 is reproduced as under :

''…..12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

13. In present case, undisputedly, petitioner was not careful in disclosing her marks in online form and has wrongly mentioned marks obtained in Graduation and BTC.

14. Undisputedly, it is not a case of the petitioner that subsequently her marks were changed after scrutiny, re-evaluation or back paper by the University or by issuing authority on its own.

15. In Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (supra) a Division Bench has followed Jyoti Yadav (supra) a judgment passed by Supreme Court where above referred Government Orders were upheld and Division Bench has specifically directed that Government Orders should be strictly followed. Supreme Court as well as Division Bench has not held that even candidate who does not fall within ambit of aforesaid Government Orders and only considering that despite mistakes committed they were in disadvantageous position, they may not be terminated from service.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of aforesaid Government Orders.

17. For the sake of argument, the submissions of counsel for petitioner in regard to 'disadvantageous position' is considered, still it would not be helpful for her, as though she has mentioned less marks as obtained in BTC, but she has disclosed more marks than she actually obtained in her Graduation course, therefore, her quality marks would vary. There is no material, except a vague submission that in case, the petitioner had submitted correct marks, she would be in an advantageous position.

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find further merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner's case is squarely covered by Pooja Gupta (supra) against her. I, therefore, don't find that there is any reason to take a different view from Pooja Gupta (supra).

19. There is no merit in present writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.''

FACTS

3. The facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below.

4. The Examination Regulatory Authority, Primary and Secondary Education, Prayagraj published an advertisement for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 (ATRE, 2019) inviting applications from eligible candidates for making appointments on 69,000 post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj (Board). It is contended that pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had also applied for the post of Assistant Teacher under the category of OBC/Female/Arts. However, while filling up the online application form, certain mistakes were committed by her. In the said application form, the petitioner had filled up the marks obtained in BTC as 1116 in theory out of 1475 total marks, whereas she has actually obtained 1131 marks. Further she had filled up 629 marks in graduation out of 1200 marks, whereas she had actually obtained 624 marks. It is contended that the petitioner belongs to rural background and this mistake was committed as internet facility is generally not available in the village. The form was filled up through Cyber Cafe operator and generally there remains huge crowd of the candidates. Admittedly, the petitioner-appellant was declared suc