HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No.786 of 2017 June 16, 2025 State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Appellants Versus Rakesh Kumar …Respondent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Sushil Vashishta, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/State None present for the respondent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. There is a delay of 157 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 12601 of 2017) stands disposed of.

2. State has filed this intra-court appeal, challenging the judgment dated 30.03.2017, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.790 of 2016, whereby writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of with direction to the authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) as per his qualification prescribed under the Rules.

3. It is not in dispute that respondent had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, pursuant to an Advertisement, issued on 17.02.2016. As per the Advertisement, while determining the quality point marks, the marks scored in the Teacher Eligibility Test (for short, T.E.T.) shall also be taken into consideration.

4. The application made by respondent was rejected on the ground that he had given an incorrect information regarding marks scored in T.E.T.; his actual score of marks in T.E.T. was 77 out of 150 while he had mentioned 110 out of 200 in his application. Another ground for rejecting respondent’s application was that he had passed T.E.T. Examination in 2015 while in his application he had mentioned year of passing T.E.T. Examination as 2007. The third ground for rejecting respondent’s application was that he had not indicated the marks scored in B.Ed. Practical in his application form.

5. Learned Single Judge held that the application made by the respondent could not have been rejected on such small mistakes and directed the authorities to consider his case for appointment as per his qualification prescribed under the Rules.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that in the ¼>½]

Advertisement, it was clearly mentioned in clause 7 which corresponds to 7 (i), that candidate would be responsible for any incorrect information given in the application form and further that the defective forms shall be rejected.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that, in the selection in question, a large number of applications were received; selection was to be made as per seniority with reference to the year of passing B.Ed. Examination and, if two or more candidates passed B.Ed. Examination in the same year, only then their comparative merit, based on the quality marks, was to be looked at. He submits that the Selecting Body made comparative assessment of merit of candidates, based on the information given by them in their application forms, and if candidates who had supplied incomplete or erroneous information, are directed to be selected and appointed in disregard of the ¼>½ condition mentioned in Clause 7 of the Advertisement, then it will be difficult for the Selecting Body to hold selection.

8. He further submits that applications made by several other candidates, who were much more meritorious than the respondent, were rejected only on the ground that the information furnished by them in their application forms was incorrect or incomplete, therefore, considering the case of the respondent alone for appointment, would cause great injustice to such other similarly situated candidates, who accepted the decision taken by the Competent Authority to reject their candidature and who did not cha