The date of issuance of a revised mark sheet after reevaluation relates back to the original mark sheet date for eligibility in batch-wise recruitment.

. (Oral) Precisely, the question, which has fallen for adjudication of the case at hand is that “whether the date of issuance of the detailed mark sheet of B.Ed after reevaluation would be taken into consideration by department for appointment on batch wise basis or date of issuance of revised detailed mark sheet would relate back to the date of issuance of original detailed mark sheet”?

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since it was not in dispute that petitioner had passed his B.Ed

Examination on 13.09.2008 and while applying for appointment as TGT Teacher on batch wise basis, he had specifically furnished information to the department that date of issuance of original detailed mark sheet is 13.09.2008, there was no occasion for respondent-Department to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he belongs to the batch of 24.12.2008. As per petitioner, he had passed his B.Ed on 13.09.2008, but since he was not satisfied with the marks awarded to him, he applied for reevaluation and respondent-Department after reevaluating marks of the petitioner issued revised detailed mark sheet on 24.12.2008, but date given on revised detailed mark sheet would relate back to the date of issuance of the unrevised detailed mark sheet i.e. on 13.09.2008.

3. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that counselling for 40 posts of the language teacher on batch wise basis was held on 13.10.2020, out of which 9 posts were reserved for SC category. At the time of counselling, 23 candidates belonging to the SC category appeared in counselling, but only nine candidates were selected and batch of the last selected candidate was 10.09.2008.

4. It is not in dispute that out of nine selected candidates under SC category, two candidates did not accept the offer of appointment and as such, candidates belonging to SC category from waiting list i.e. private respondents No. 4 and 5 came to be offered appointment. Petitioner herein, who being fully qualified had also applied for the post in question under SC category but was unable to make place in the final merit list of nine posts reserved for the category of scheduled caste. However, on account of subsequent development, whereby respondents No. 4 and 5 came to be offered appointment on the ground of non-joining of two candidates belonging to SC category, petitioner herein though became eligible to be offered appointment against one of the posts, but since his case was not considered for appointment on batch wise basis on the ground that he belongs to the batch of 24.12.2008, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:-

“(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and selection and appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 (Annexure P-13) may very kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent authorities may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits of seniority, arrear of pay etc.

(ii) That respondents may very kindly be directed to re- draw selection merit list (Annexure P-11).

(iii) That respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record of the case.

(iv) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost.

5. Admittedly, while making an application, petitioner herein had placed on record detailed mark sheet dated 24.12.2008 issued in his favour by the respondent-Department for his having passed B.Ed

Degree, but such mark sheet was not the original mark sheet, rather, was issued after reevaluation. It is also not in dispute that though petitioner herein had actually passed B.Ed examination on 13.09.2008, but he being not satisfied with his marks, applied for reevaluation. Acceding to the request of the petitioner for reevaluation, respondent-Department after having reevalu