Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6839 of 2021 Petitioner :- Bal Ram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present writ petition has been filed alleging that while filling vacancy for recruitment as a Assistant Teacher in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019, the petitioner while filling marks obtained in the B.Ed. Examination filled his marks as 312 out of 600 in the paper of theory and 344 out of 400 in the paper of practical. The said was an inadvertent error as marks obtained by the petitioner in theory are 316 out of 600 and in practical are 340 out of 400. He argues that no benefit accrued to the petitioner on account of said inadvertent error as the selection is based upon quality point awarded on aggregate marks secured in B.Ed. and not on the basis of marks obtained separately. He argues that marks of their total remains the same, as such, no benefit has enured on account of such inadvertent error. He further submits that in Paragraph No. 2 of the Government Order dated 4th December, 2020, it has been provided that if filling wrong marks does not result in change, and there is no difference in merit, the candidate shall be issued appointment letter on his furnishing an affidavit. It is further submitted that this question was considered by this Court in and 3 others (Writ A No. 8525 of 2021 decided on 2.8.2021.
It is submitted that the aforesaid Government Order has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition(s)(Civil)No.(s).378/2021 (Rahul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) in paragraph-7 of the judgment, which is extracted here-in-below:
"7.We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear wherever a candidate has put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected;but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form.
These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not taken any advantage of filling wrong information in the form.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Government Order dated 5th March,1991 provides that where a candidate has filled in higher marks in the application form than the marks obtained, without any basis the candidature of the Be that as it may, prima face, the petitioner has made out a case for interim order.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 and 4 pray for and are allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have four weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
As an interim measure, it is provided that the petitioner shall furnish an affidavit before Respondent No. 4 in the light of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 within a period of three weeks from today along with the copy of this order downloaded from the official Website of the Allahabad High Court duly certified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On being furnishing the said affidavit respondent-authority shall issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioner.
It is, however, clarified that the appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to the final result of this writ petition.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 vinay