# Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8734 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadhesh-kumar-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52822
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,929 of 47,260. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39929 for what follows._

12 All. Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
211

(32) The Division Bench also observed
that the petitioner's services is regulated by the
Service Rules of 1994 and he is entitled for
promotional avenues as per Rules of 1987 and
certain regular promotions are being made in
accordance with Service Rules and as per
seniority-cum-merit. Thus, the avenues of
promotion is available to the petitioner and
other similarly situated officers as per Service
Rules and there is no denial from the side of the
appellant about the same, whereas the Service
Rules of 1994 are not applicable on the services
of the petitioners and the criteria in the Service
Rules of 1987 for promotion on the next post of
Statistical Officer is merit and not senioritycum-merit or seniority subject to rejection of
unfit. Therefore, we are of the view that the
Division Bench in the case of R.P. Shukla
(Supra) had proceeded in deciding the case of
the similarly situated employee in that case on
misreading of the Rule and without considering
the Government Order dated 20.08.2004, which
had come into force, therefore, the petitioners
are not entitled for any benefit of the said
judgment.

(33) In view of above, we are of the view
that the petitioners are not entitled for the
promotional pay scale as per the Service Rules
applicable on them and the Government Order
dated 02.12.2000 as clarified by means of the
Government Orders dated 03.09.2001 and
20.08.2004. No Government Orders issued
subsequent thereto has been pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis
of which, the petitioners may be entitled for the
promotional pay scale, as claimed.

(34) One of the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioners was that now the
cadre has changed, therefore, after the present
petitioners, no other employee in the cadre of
the petitioners would be eligible or entitled for
the aforesaid claim. This submission is based on
the principle of parity with the employees, who
have been granted the benefit under the
aforesaid
Government
Orders
by
the
Government or on the orders passed by this
Court, which can be considered by the learned
Single Judge only subject to the pleading in this
regard of the petitioners and considering the law
on the issue. However, it is noticed that the
respondents had argued that none of the
similarly situated employee was given benefit
by the Government under the Government
Order dated 02.12.2000 and they had retired
prior to that also, therefore, if the petitioners had
completed 24 years of service prior to the said
Government Order and eligible under any prior
Government Order or scheme, it can also be
considered by learned Single Judge subject to
pleading and not by this Bench.

(35)
The
reference
is
answered
accordingly.

(36) Let the matter be placed before the
learned Single Judge within next two weeks for
appropriate decision in the matter.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 8734 of 2025
&
Writ A No. 8766 of 2025

Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Legality of termination order obtained by
mentioning higher marks in application forms.
(2) Applicability of doctrine of estoppels, where
a candidate misrepresented material particulars.
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination - Assistant
teacher - Charge of mentioning higher
marks in application forms to get selection
and appointment - Though the petitioners
had efficiently discharged their duties for
almost five years and were holding regular
and permanent appointments, but their
services were dispensed with - Not
following the procedure as specified under
the Rules of 1973 and 1999 was claimed -
Permissibility - Doctrine of estoppels -
Applicability - Issue of categorization of
advantageous
and
disadvantageous
positions felt into consideration. (E-1)
Held : Submission of false or incorrect
information with the intent of securing an undue
benefit amounts to misrepresentation and fraud,
and any appointment or advantage obtained on
the basis of such false information is liable to be
cancelled - Entering higher marks than actually
obtained is not a mere clerical lapse but a
deliberate act capable of altering the merit
position, therefore it cannot be regularised
under the guise of 'human error'. Any undue
advantage so obtained is illegal and vitiates the
selection itself - It is a cardinal principle of
service jurisprudence that fraud vitiates every
solemn act. A candidate who enters the
selection process by misrepresenting material
particulars, such as academic marks that
constitute the very basis of merit-based
recruitment,
cannot
invoke
the
equitable
doctrine of estoppel. [Paras 29, 31 and 32]
Held further : The issue of categorization of
advantageous and disadvantageous positions
has been considered by the Apex Court in the
case of Jyoti Yadav - 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 - Admittedly, case of
the petitioners nos. 5, 6 & 7 in Writ-A No. 8734
of 2025, namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur
and Rinku Singh and petitioner no. 1 - Sweety
Shokeen in Writ-A No. 8766 of 2025 fall within
the
criteria
of
disadvantage,
thus,
their
appointments are based on the merit criteria
they possess. [Para 27 and 38]
Case Law Cited
Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs State of
U.P. and others, (2024) 11 SCC 770; Ajay
Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
Neutral Citation No- 2024: AHC: 13031; Civil
Appeal No. 3707 of 2020, Ram Sharan Maurya
and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others; Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6687 of 2020, Subedar
Singh and Others vs. State of U.P.; Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 322 of 2021, Jyoti yadav & Anr. vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. decided on
08.04.2021; Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(s).
378/2021, Rahul Kumar vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. decided on 29.06.2021; District
Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare
Residential
School
Society,
Vizianagaram and another vs. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655; Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437; Union of India vs. M.
Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp 4 SCC 100; State of Bihar
and others vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2019) 13
SCC 250;
Meghmala and others vs. G.
Narasimha Reddy and others, (2010) 8 SCC 383
- referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973; U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999.

List of Keywords
Termination;
Regular
appointment;
Misrepresentation; Discriminatory; Principle of
estoppels;
Mentioning
higher
marks
than
actually
possess;
Advertent
mistake;
Categorization
of
advantageous
and
disadvantageous
positions;
Service
jurisprudence;
Equitable
principle;
Public
appointments; Procedural indulgence; Vested
right to continue.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed by
the respondent no. 3 terminating the service of
petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare,
Senior Advocate, Yatindra, Siddharth Khare,
Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Advs. for the Respondents : Standing
Counsel, Mrs. Archana Singh
12 All. Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
213
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. The petitioners have preferred
instant writ petitions challenging orders
dated 09.05.2025 and 21.05.2025 passed by
respondent no. 31 and respondent no. 42
respectively, whereby services of the
petitioners have been terminated on the
ground of mentioning increased marks in
the application forms submitted by them
while applying for the posts of Assistant
teachers.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
the State Government issued a Government
Order dated 01.12.2018 notifying the
holding of Assistant Teachers Recruitment
Examination 20193 for the appointment
against 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers.
The petitioners, being eligible for the posts
of Assistant Teachers, applied pursuant to
the said advertisement. They were issued
admit cards for appearing in the ATRE
2019. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners
participated
in
the
said
examination
conducted on 06.01.2019. The result of
ATRE 2019 was declared on 12.05.2020,
wherein names of the petitioners were
shown as qualified candidates.

3. After being declared qualified in
ATRE 2019, the State Government issued a
Government Order on 13.05.2020 for
consideration of the appointments of
selected candidates as Assistant Teachers.
In pursuance thereof, petitioners applied for
the appointment. Thereafter, a final select
list was published on 01.06.2020. In the
said list, the petitioners were shown to have
been duly selected and they were allotted
District
Kushinagar.
The
petitioners
participated in the counseling conducted by
the BSA, Kushinagar. Initially some
objections stood against the petitioners'
appointment, therefore, the BSA published
a list of 39 candidates, whose cases were
kept pending on account of such objections.
For rectification of said discrepancies, the
matter was considered at the level of the
State Government, whereafter Government
Orders dated 04.12.2020 and 15.01.2021
were issued. Pursuant to the said orders, the
candidates
were
required
to
furnish
individual affidavits before the BSA. After
consideration
of
petitioners'
cases,
appointment orders were issued by the
BSA in favour of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners joined their services
in the office of District Basic Education
Officer, Kushinagar. Thereafter, they were
given postings on 08.09.2021 in their
respective schools run by the U.P. Board of
Basic Education. Since the date of their
joining,
the
petitioners
had
been
performing their duties with due diligence
and sincerity, however, the respondent no.
3 terminated their services by the order
impugned dated 21.05.2025 in compliance
with the instructions issued by respondent
no. 2 in its order dated 09.05.2025, on the
ground that the petitioners had filled up
higher marks in their application forms
than they actually secured. The said orders
are being assailed by means of present writ
petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners possess the
requisite qualifications as required for the
post of Assistant Teacher. They were
fulfilling all required eligibility criteria as
on the date of submission of their
respective
application
forms.
It
is
contended that a number of candidates
were denied appointment on account of
non-fulfillment
of
required
eligibility
criteria as on 22.12.2018, which was the
last date for submission of application
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forms. Such candidates preferred writ
petition before this Court which was
dismissed by order dated 24.03.2025. Said
order was subject matter of challenge in
Special Appeal Nos. 350 of 20254 and
Special Appeal Defective No. 336 of
20255. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
further contends that the aforementioned
special
appeals
were
decided
vide
judgement and order dated 15.05.2025,
however, the observations so made therein
have no applicability regarding petitioners'
appointment.

6. It has been argued by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
that
the
petitioners had efficiently discharged their
duties for almost five years and they were
holding
regular
and
permanent
appointments, thus, their services cannot be
dispensed with without following the
procedure as specified under the U.P. Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973 read with U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next submits that non-existent objections
have been cited in the orders impugned as
the respondent authorities were duly aware
of the minor discrepancies and they had
taken remedial measures for rectification of
alleged discrepancies in accordance with
the Government orders/ and circulars
issued in that regard.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further contends that the petitioners have served
for five years and there has been no complaint
regarding their functioning, thus, action of the
respondent
authorities
terminating
the
petitioners' services is of extreme nature that
too without following the due procedure as
prescribed under the relevant Rules, which is
liable to be set aside by this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next
submits that the list detailing 39 applicants,
whose cases were kept pending on account of
objections, was published. For example, in the
case of petitioner - Preeti, it has been mentioned
that she did not participate in the re-counseling.
Likewise, in the case of petitioner - Manish
Kumar Mahaur, the variation in marks was on
account of revised marks issued by the
University. Though, said objections were not in
existence.

10. Despite minor discrepancies, that
existed with regard to a large number of
candidates, all over the State, for rectification of
the
same,
the
matter
was
accorded
consideration at the level of the State
Government and the educational authority
based on the relevant Government Orders dated
04.12.2020, 15.01.2021 and circulars dated
16.12.2020,
18.01.2021
and
19.01.2021.
Pursuant to which, the district authorities
proceeded to take remedial measures. During
the course of said proceedings, the petitioners
were required to furnish their individual
affidavits before the District Basic Education
Officer, Kushinagar. After full consideration of
individual cases, on the basis of individual
affidavits as furnished, the petitioners were
issued appointment letters and they joined
accordingly.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that once the correct information
was furnished by way of individual
affidavits and appointment letters were
issued after scrutiny, there was no occasion
to cancel the petitioners' appointments on
non-existent grounds. Thus, the impugned
orders
are
arbitrary,
illegal
and
discriminatory. He further submits that
once an opportunity was given to rectify
the mistake of entering enhanced marks in
the application forms and the same was
duly rectified, and the petitioners were
12 All. Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
215
offered appointments, therefore, passing of
the impugned orders is barred by the
'principle of estoppel'.

12. It is further argued that services of
the petitioners cannot be dispensed with in
a manner as adopted in the present case that
too after a lapse of five years from the date
of appointment and without following
proper procedure as prescribed under law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that as per the settled legal position
the remedial power can be exercised only
within a reasonable period. Such an
exercise after a lapse of five years, during
which
the
petitioners
have
been
continuously working, is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
There
has
been
no
concealment or misrepresentation of facts
on the part of the petitioners while filling
up application forms and it must be taken
as human error which could have been
ignored.

13. Challenging the orders impugned,
learned counsel for the petitioners further
contends that neither any malpractice on
the part of the petitioners has been proved
nor there is any fraud or misrepresentation
has
been
established
against
them,
therefore,
the
order
impugned
is
unsustainable.
In
support
of
his
submissions, relying upon a judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam
Yadav and another vs State of U.P. and
others6, he further submits that the
petitioners cannot be held responsible for
an irregularity committed by the authorities
in computation of marks that too after the
petitioners
were
appointed
following
detailed scrutiny of the records.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has also relied upon a judgment of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Ajay Kumar and others vs. State of
U.P. and others7, wherein the petitioners
had wrongly disclosed in their application
forms that they had passed B.T.C. Course
and incorrectly mentioned the marks
obtained in the said course, although they
had passed B.T.C after few days of the
registration and, later on, made corrections
in this regard when opportunity was
granted to them, could not be said to have
misrepresented before the authorities, thus,
their appointments could not have been
declared void ab initio. The Court, while
entertaining the plea in the said case,
observed that pursuant to subsequent
circulars issued by the respondents, as the
petitioners had already cured the bonafide
mistake committed by them by rectifying
the errors and disclosing the correct results,
the impugned order therein declaring the
appointments void ab initio, was no more
in existence, therefore, they were entitled to
continue in service. The petitioners in the
present case, on similar circumstances, who
had rectified their discrepancies by placing
correct marks, are also entitled for the same
relief.

15. Learned counsel for respondent
nos. 3 & 4 submits that the impugned
orders were passed after due verification of
the petitioners' records, wherein the entries
made by them in their application forms
were found to be incorrect during the
course of verification of their original
records. She further submits that the
discrepancies cannot be ignored because
the said wrongful information had affected
the entire fate of the examination, on the
basis of which the petitioners secured
appointment though they were not eligible
for it. She further submits that the
petitioners' claim is barred by the ratio of
the judgement dated 21.05.2020 passed in
the case of Ram Sharan Maurya and
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Others v. State of U.P. and Others8,
wherein it has been held that the candidates
who placed themselves in an advantageous
position
by
furnishing
incorrect
information in the online application forms,
cannot be permitted to derive any benefit,
as it would be violative of the doctrine of
fairness and equality.

16. It has been further argued by
learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 3 & 4 that in view of the judgement of
the Apex Court in the case of Subedar
Singh and Others v. State of U.P.9, the
petitioners
are
not
entitled
for
any
consideration. Only those candidates who,
on account of inadvertent error, placed
themselves in a disadvantageous position
could be granted benefit of rectification.
The appointments of candidates who had
placed themselves in an advantageous
position, by filling incorrect information,
were rightly cancelled.

17. Learned counsel for respondent
nos. 3 & 4 has drawn attention of the Court
to Clause-2 of the Government Order dated
04.12.2020, which has been brought on
record at Page-44 of short counter affidavit.
She
submits
that
as
per
the
said
Government Order, only those who are in
disadvantageous
position,
due
to
inadvertent error, were permitted for
rectification as per rules. In case of such
candidates, who have filled incorrect
details in the online application form which
resulted their placement in an advantageous
position, their candidature be cancelled
forthwith.

18. It has further been contended by
learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4
that the petitioners cannot claim equity as
cancellation of their candidature was on the
basis of incorrect information regarding
marks, based upon which they secured
appointments. She has tried to demonstrate
the anomalies found during verification of
records, drawing attention of the Court to
the
following
details
mentioned
in
tabulated form:

Sl
.
N
o.
Registra
tion
Number
Name
of
Petitio
ner
Marks
filled in
online
applicati
on form
Actual
marks
obtained
as per
record
1.
5500031
603
Awadh
esh
Kumar
Chaudh
ary
(Intermed
iate)
384/500
(Intermed
iate)
348/500
2.
3500472
823
Sunit
Kumar
Yadav
(Graduati
on)
1371/220
0
(Graduati
on)
1341/220
0
3.
5500009
747
Arjun
Singh
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
241/245
Practical-
175/176
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
486/800
Practical-
351/400
4.
3100075
048
Priyam
vda
Pusker
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
1000/100
0
Practical-
722/722
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
328/600
Practical-
394/400
5.
2400119
521
Preeti
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
651/1110
Practical-
253/340
(Training
Qualificat
ion
Theory-
464/750
Practical-
440/700
6.
0300060
177
Manish
Kumar
Mahaur
(Graduati
on)
743/1350
(Graduati
on)
733/1350
7.
1400043
696
Rinku
Singh
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
298/560
Practical-
126/140
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
540/900
Practical-
395/500
12 All. Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
217
8.
2400136
448
Sweety
Shokee
n
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
865/1175
Practical-
780/825
(Training
Qualificat
ion)
Theory-
755/1050
Practical-
890/950
9.
3500191
277
Priyank
a
Srivast
ava
(Graduati
on)
1133/180
0
(Graduati
on)
1113/180
0
10
.
0800106
015
Pinky
(Training
Qualificat
ion
)
Theory
650/650
Practical-
461/477
(Training
Qualificat
ion
)
Theory-
499/780
Practical-
439/520
11
.
5000071
389
Km.
Pushpa
(Graduati
on)
1269/180
0
(Graduati
on)
1209/180
0

19. Learned counsel for respondent
nos. 3 & 4 has relied upon various orders
passed in the matters of incorrectly filled
application forms by the candidates at the
time of filling up application forms. In such
cases the Courts have dealt with the issue
of inadvertent mistakes and the deliberate
attempt
to
place
himself/herself
in
advantageous position. Observations of the
Courts passed in few cases, upon which
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 &
4, has relied upon, are as follows:

i. Special Appeal No. 834 of
201310:

If prospective teacher can not
even correctly fill up the simple on line
application form for his employment, it is
obvious what he is going to teach if
appointed. There are certain decisions cited
on this issue. But none of them deal with
this aspect whether under the discretionary
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226
of
the
Constitution
of
India
such
incompetent persons should be allowed to
play with the future of the next generation.

Therefore, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner/appellant should wait till
he attains sufficient maturity and learns to
be
more
careful
in
filling
up
the
applications for jobs. The appeal is
therefore, dismissed.

ii. Writ-A No. 4070 of 202011:

20. The error committed by the
candidates cannot be said to be human in
nature. The petitioners should have read the
instructions that were issued time and again
and should have correctly filled the entries
relating to the marks obtained by them in
their previous examinations. The contention
that this was an error committed by the
Computer
Operator
cannot
simply
be
accepted. If the Courts were to accept such a
plea of the petitioners, then this would result
in a situation where the petitioners would get
the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim
went unnoticed and if noticed the petitioners
could always turn around and claim that this
was a result of a human error. Each candidate
necessarily must bear the consequences of his
failure to fill up the application form
correctly. From perusal of the record, I am of
the opinion that the error/errors committed by
the petitioners are neither minor nor are
human error/errors.

21. In view of the facts as
narrated above as well as the law laid down
by the different Division Bench of this
Court from time to time as well as by the
Apex Court, no relief could be granted to
the petitioners.

22.
The
writ
petition
is
dismissed."
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

iii. Writ-A No. 11079 of 202012:

"On an overall conspectus of the
aforesaid discussion the Court comes to the
following conclusions. A permission to
rectify and amend entries made in the
online applications would be clearly
impermissible in light of the caveats carried
in the advertisements and notices issued by
the respondents as well as the declarations
made by the candidates themselves while
participating in the recruitment process. It
would not only be iniquitous but also
detrimental to public interest to command
the respondents to permit rectifications at
the fag end of a recruitment exercise which
commenced in December 2018. The
stipulations contained in the advertisements
and notices issued were never assailed by
the petitioners prior to participating in the
recruitment process. It would be unfair not
just to the respondents but to the other
selected candidates to now accord them
such permission which would necessarily
result in the selection process being stalled
and derailed. This Court as well as the
Supreme Court has consistently taken the
view that such a course being tread would
be wholly unfair and unwarranted. The
Court
repels
the
challenge
to
the
Government Order of 4 December 2020
being contrary to the mandate of Rule 14. It
also negatives its challenge on the ground
of being discriminatory or unfair.

These
petitions
shall
consequently stand disposed of with liberty
to the State respondents to evaluate the case
of each of the petitioners before this Court
in light of the Government Order dated 4
December 2020."

20. Learned counsel for respondent
nos. 3 & 4 contends that the applicants
have deliberately shown their marks higher
than
they
actually
secured
in
their
academics, which is evident from their
academic records, thus, they are not
entitled to be considered for being granted
benefit of any ignorance in view of the
observations made in Subedar Singh
(supra).

21. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Yatindra,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

22. The petitioners applied against
69000 posts of Assistant Teachers. They
were selected and joined their services. By
the impugned order dated 21.05.2025
issued pursuant to the order of respondent
no. 2 dated 09.05.2025 appointments of all
teachers who have been placed in an
advantageous
position
by
mentioning
higher marks than they actually secured,
were directed to be cancelled.

23. Questioning the termination of
petitioners' services, learned counsel for
the
petitioners
contended
that
the
petitioners have served for about five years,
thus, their services cannot be dispensed
with without following the procedure as
provided under the U.P. Basic Education
Staff
Rules,
1973
read
with
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999, however, he has
failed
to
satisfactorily
respond
the
objections raised by learned counsel for
respondent nos. 3 & 4 that the petitioners
have mentioned higher marks than those
actually secured except the petitioner nos.
5, 6 & 7, in Writ-A No. 8734 of 2025,
namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur and
Rinku Singh and petitioner no. 1 Sweety
Shokeen in Writ-A No. 8766 of 2025.
12 All. Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
219

24. Perusal of the record shows that
petitioner nos. 5, 6 & 7 in Writ-A No. 8734
of 2025, namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar
Mahaur and Rinku Singh did not mention
higher marks than they actually possess,
though, the mistake occurred at their end is
bonafide. Petitioner - Preeti mentioned her
marks in the application form separately
i.e. marks of B.Ed. in Practical and Theory
examinations instead of aggregate of the
duo. The petitioner - Manish Kumar
Mahaur mentioned the marks 743/1350 in
his application form according to the marks
obtained by him in Graduation (B.Sc.)
which were shown in his old mark-sheet
(Sl. No. 13176008)13, however, after reexamination in the revised mark-sheet
(Sl. No. 13618783)14, his marks are
shown as 733/1350. Thus, no inflation of
marks has been done by him while
filling up the application form. The
marks disclosed by Rinku Singh in his
application form are also not higher than
the marks he actually possesses in his
academic records, as he secured higher
marks i.e. 935/1400 (66.78%) in the
training qualification, which exceed the
marks mentioned in the application form
i.e.
424/700
(60.57%).
Insofar
as
petitioner no. 1 - Sweety Shokeen in
Writ-A No. 8766 of 2025 is concerned,
she did not mention higher marks in the
application form, as the aggregate of
marks obtained out of total marks,
disclosed in the application form, comes
to same figure which she actually
secured i.e. 1645/2000 marks in D.Ed.

25. The respondent no. 2, while
passing
the
order
impugned
dated
09.05.2025, has referred to various
judgements and orders passed by this
Court as well as the Apex Court on the
issue of bonafide human error committed
by the candidates while filling up their
application forms and the advertent
mistakes committed in order to secure
appointments on the basis of projecting
higher
marks
than
they
actually
possessed in their academic records. It
would be apt to refer the relevant
extracts of those judgement and orders
of this Court and the Apex Court, which
are being reproduced herein below:

i. Writ-A No. 4677 of 202015:

"63. I had occasion to consider
the issue about rectification to an
application form relating to the present
examination, where the error sought to
be corrected was about an unclaimed
reservation category, in Writ - A
No.4552 of 2020, Deepti Singh vs. State
of U.P. and 2 others, decided on
23.06.2020. In Deepti Singh (supra), it
was held:

"This
Court
has
keenly
considered the matter. It is true that the
mistake on the petitioner's part of not
mentioning
her
horizontal
reservation
category may be inadvertent but the terms
and conditions in the form do not permit
the petitioner to reform the same lateron,
once she has filled up and submitted the
examination
form,
without
claiming
something as important as a reservation
category. A reservation category is one that
places the petitioner in a special selection
pool
of
2%
candidates.
Once
the
recruitment process has gone ahead, a
selectee in that pool whose result has been
declared or on way would be disturbed
because the petitioner now makes her
claim, if permitted. This kind of a late
reform of the petitioner's candidature
entitling her to seek selection under a
reservation category cannot be permitted in
the opinion of this Court."
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

64. In view of what has been said
above, this Court does not find any good
ground to interfere.

65. In the result, these writ
petitions fail and are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs."

ii. Writ-A No. 8697 of 202016:

":As is evident from the extracted
part of that decision, the Supreme Court in
the peculiar facts of that case had permitted
the appellant to rectify the mistake.
Archana Chauhan cannot therefore be
recognized as a precedent of universal
application. In any case this Court is bound
by the decisions rendered by the Full Bench
and the Division Bench noted above, where
this issue was dealt with in extenso and
ruled upon on merits.

The writ petition is consequently
dismissed."

iii. Special Appeal Defective No.
467 of 202117:

"It is not in dispute that subsequent
to the judgment aforesaid, individual case of
the petitioner was considered by the appellant
herein with a detailed order cancelling their
selection. The said order was passed
subsequent to the judgment. Thus, counsel
for the petitioner/non-appellant prays for
liberty to challenge the individual order. The
judgment of the learned Single Judge is not
sustainable in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court dated 08th April, 2021, in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021 (Jyoti
Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and
others).

Learned counsel for the appellant
has no objection, if the judgment of the
learned Single Judge be set aside with
liberty to the petitioner to challenge
subsequent order.

In view of the above, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is set
aside, however, with the liberty to the
petitioner/non-appellant to challenge the
subsequent
order
passed
against
the
petitioner.

The appeal is disposed of with the
aforesaid.

iv. Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No
(s). 378 of 202118:

"7.
We
need
not
consider
individual fact situation as the reading of
the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is
quite clear that wherever a candidate had
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.
12 All. Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
221

8. It must however be stated here
that
the
authorities
are
not
strictly
following the intent of the G.O. and the
Circular. For example, the Office Order
dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic
Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi,
shows cancellation of the candidature of
one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4,
though the projection of marks by way of
mistake by said candidate was to his
disadvantage. Logically, said candidate
would be entitled to have his candidature
considered
and
reckoned
at
the
disadvantaged level. The record shows that
even with such disadvantage, the candidate
was entitled to be selected."

26. With respect to the anomalies in
application forms of the candidates, who
applied against the 69000 posts of Assistant
Teachers, the State Government has issued
clarification
by
communication
dated
05.03.2021. Copy of the said document has
been brought on record as Annexure SCA7 to the Short Counter Affidavit. Clause (1)
of the said communication specifically
mentions that the candidates who have
filled more aggregate of marks than their
actual
marks,
their
appointment/
candidature shall be cancelled. Relevant
Clause (1) of the said communication is
being reproduced below:

(1) सहमहत की संस्तुहत के हबन्दु-1, प्राप्ांक
अहधक के संबंध में -भजन अभ्यभिायों द्वारा अपने आवेिन पत्र में
उनके पा उपिब्ध वैद्य प्रमाि-पत्र / अिंकपत्रों के आधार पर
अभधक प्राप्तािंक अिंभकत भकये गये िे तिा उनके अिंकपत्रों / प्रमािपत्रों
के िंबिंध में स्कूटनी / पुनमूाल्यािंकन बैक पेपर में अभजात अिंक अिवा
अन्य भक ी आधार पर प्राप्तािंकों में भवश्वभवद्यािय / भनगमान िंस्िा
द्वारा स्वयिं पररवतान भकया गया है तिा िंबिंभधत प्रमाि पत्र आवेिन
पत्र पूररत करने के पश्चात भनगात भकया गया, तो ऐ े अभ्यभिायों के
अिंकों में पररवतान होने त्रुभटपूिा आवेिन पत्र िरने के भिए िंबिंभधत
अभ्यिी को भजम्मेिार नहीं माना जा कता, क्योंभक तत् मय
 िंबिंभधत अभ्यिी के पा आवेिन पत्र में अिंभकत ूचनाओिं िंबिंधी
ही प्रमाि-पत्र / अिंक पत्र उपिब्ध िे। अत : ऐ े अभ्यिी यभि
 िंबिंभधत जनपि में अपने वगा में जनपि में अभन्तम चयभनत अभ्यिी
के गुिािंक े अभधक गुिािंकधारी हैं तो ऐ े अभ्यभिायों के भनयुभक्त
पत्र भनगात कर भिया जाये । यभि िंबिंभधत अभ्यिी का वास्तभवक
गुिािंक जनपि में ुबिंभधत वगा में अभन्तम चयभनत अभ्यिी के गुिािंक
 े कम है, भकन्तु राज्य स्तर पर िंबिंभधत वगा एविं वरीयताकम में
अभन्तम चयभनत अभ्यिी के गुिािंक े अभधक है तो ऐ े अभ्यिी
का प्रस्ताव भशक्षा भनिेशक, बेभ क के माध्यम े शा न को
उपिब्ध कराया जाये। शा न द्वारा भिये गये भनिेश के िम में
कायावाही की जायेगी जहां पर अभ्यर्थी के िारा स्वयं हबना
हकसी अहिलेखीय आधार के वास्तहवक प्राप्ांक से अहधक
अंक अर्थवा कम पूर्ाांक अंहकत हकया गया है, उनके
चयन/अभ्यर्थथन को हनरस्त कर हदया जाय ।"

27. The issue of categorization of
advantageous
and
disadvantageous
positions has been considered by the Apex
Court in the case of Jyoti yadav & Anr. v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.19.
Relevant part of the said judgement reads
thus:

"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."

28. The Apex Court in the case of
Rahul Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors. 20, has observed that the candidate
who had put himself in a disadvantageous
position and he was not claiming any
advantage, candidature of such person shall
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not be cancelled: Relevant excerpt of the
said order is being quoted herein-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 that wherever a candidate had
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.

 (Emphasis supplied)

29. In a catena of judgements, the
Supreme Court has consistently held that
submission of false or incorrect information
with the intent of securing an undue benefit
amounts to misrepresentation and fraud,
and any appointment or advantage obtained
on the basis of such false information is
liable to be cancelled. In the case of
District
Collector
&
Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School
Society,
Vizianagaram
and
another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi21,
the Court has observed that a candidate
cannot claim equity or sympathy when
he/she
has
obtained
a
benefit
by
suppressing or misstating material facts.
Similarly, in the case of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram
Ratan Yadav22, the Supreme Court has
held that furnishing incorrect information
in
recruitment
documents
justifies
termination, irrespective of whether the
misstatement was intentional or otherwise.
The
suppression
or
misstatement
of
material
information
in
recruitment
documents is a serious lapse, and even if
the candidate claims inadvertence, the
employer is justified in cancelling the
candidature.

30. In the case of Union of India v.
M. Bhaskaran23, the Supreme Court has
held
that
appointments
obtained
by
producing false documents or incorrect
information are void ab initio, and no
equity can be claimed by the wrongdoer.