On the previous occasion following orders were passed:
"Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon an order passed in Writ Petition No.6529 of 2021 to submit that petitioner's claim is identical and merits dismissal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short time to examine the same.
Post as fresh once again on 16.08.2021."
Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Archana Chauhan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others being Civil Appeal No.3868 of 2020, decided on 02.09.2020. It is contended that petitioner's error is similar to the one which had occasioned in Archana Chauhan's case (supra), and therefore, petitioner be permitted to correct such mistake.
It transpires that the issue as to whether correction in the recruitment in question would be permissible has been examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others being Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021, decided on 08.04.2021, which has been relied upon by this Court in Writ Petition No.6529 of 2021 vide following orders passed on 22.07.2021:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Arun Kumar for the respondent no.3.
Petitioner wants consideration of his claim for appointment against Assistant Teachers' Recruitment Examination, 2019, whereby 69000 appointments were to be made. In the online application form petitioner has disclosed his marks as 442 on the basis of which his claim was considered but appointment letter has not been issued to him as petitioner has scored only 422 marks and has misrepresented the correct marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the mistake was inadvertent and even by the reduced merits he would get selected. The petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.
Issue as has been raised in this petition has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021, decided on 8.4.2021, wherein their Lorships in paragraph 13 to 17 have observed as under:-
"13. The stand of the State is that every candidate was obliged to fill up the relevant entries in the application form correctly and specially those pertaining to the marks obtained by the candidates in various examinations with due care and caution. The information given in the application form would reflect in quality points of the candidates and have a direct bearing on the merit list. That would in turn, not only determine the inter se merit but afford guidance to cater to the choices indicated by the candidates. The declaration which was spelt out in the Guidelines and repeated in the Advertisement, had clearly put every candidate to notice that if there be any mistake in the application form, the candidate could not claim any right to have those mistakes rectified.
14. Wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater than what they actually deserved, according to the Communication dated 05.03.2021, their candidature would stand rejected. However, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at a disadvantage as against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made by said Communication. The reason for treating these two categories of candidates differently cannot thus be called irrational.
In the first case, going by the marks or information given in the application form the candidate would secure undue advantage whereas in the latter category of cases the candidate would actually be at a disadvantage or where the variation could not be attributed to them. The candidates in the latter category have been given a respite from the rigor of the declaration. The classification is clear and precise. Those who could possibly walk away with the undue advantage will continue to be governed by the terms of the declaration, while the other category would be given some relief.
15. Having considered all the rival submissions, in our view, the Communication dated 05.03.2021 made a rational distinction and was designed to achieve a purpose of securing fairness while maintaining the integrity of the entire process. If, at every juncture, any mistakes by the candidates were to be addressed and considered at individual level, the entire process of selection may stand delayed and put to prejudice. In order to have definiteness in the matter, certain norms had to be prescribed and prescription of such stipulations cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational. Every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the Guidelines and the Advertisement.
16. Having found the Communication dated 05.03.2021 to be correct, the cases of the petitioners must be held to be governed fully by the rigors of the said Communication.
17. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in these petitions and no opportunity beyond the confines of the Communication dated 05.03.2021 can be afforded to the petitioners to rectify the mistakes committed by them. We, therefore, reject the submissions and dismiss all these petitions."
Facts of this case are squarely covered by the adjudication made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.
Writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed."
In the facts of the present case also the recruitment is with regard to 69000 appointments to be made on the post of Assistant Teacher in which large number of applicants had applied. In such large scale recruitment it would be open for the recruiting agency to follow uniform procedure and to stick to the details mentioned in the online application form. Individual sympathies on account of inadvertent mistake in filling of online application form would not be warranted as it would interfere with the large scale recruitment. In the matters of large scale recruitment wider public interest is involved in maintaining sanctity of the recruitment. Petitioner is otherwise to blame himself as being an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher he is expected to atleast correctly fill up the application form.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Ashok Kr.