# Pawan Kumar & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 847
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11079 of 2020
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pawan-kumar-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-46132
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Law-U.P.
Basic
Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 14
- G.O. dated 04.12.2020 - Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination
-
Online application forms - Filing - Mistake
- Right to rectify - There was an adequate
disclosure and notice to the candidates
that the data gathered at an earlier stage
would be utilised to take the entire
selection process to its logical conclusion -
Held,
the
process
adopted
by
the
respondents not in violation of Rule 14 - 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. (Para 25 and 50)
B. Constitution of India - Article 14 - G.O.
dated 04.12.2020 - Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination - Two class of
candidates - One class of candidate
entered information of less obtainedmarks than original or high total marks
than original under Para no. 1 and 2, while
another class of candidates entered more
obtained-marks than original or less total
marks than original under Para no. 3 and 4
- Selection of later class of candidates is
made liable to be cancelled - Held, there
is a reasonable and germane classification
between the two classes of candidates -
While candidates falling under paragraphs
1 and 2 stand at a disadvantage, those
who fall under paragraphs 3 and 4 have
gained undue advantage on account of the
nature of the disclosures that were made
by them in the online application forms -
The plea of discrimination found not
sustainable. (Para 27, 35 and 36)
Writ Petition disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,364 of 65,621. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39364 for what follows._

1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
847
The other issues raised by the petitioner
have already been dealt with, and it is held,
that the impugned order does not suffer
from any infirmity, so as to call for
interference by this Court in the exercise of
our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

27. In the result, this petition fails and
stands dismissed.

28. Costs shall go easy.
----------
(2021)01ILR A847
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ A No. 11079 of 2020
 connected with
Writ A Nos. 4193 of 2020, 8343 of 2020, 10317
of 2020, 11072 of 2020, 11170 of 2020, 11402
of 2020, 11632 of 2020 and 11643 of 2020

Pawan Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Radha Kant
Ojha (Senior Adv.), Sri Shatrughan Sonwal,
Sri Shivendu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arun Kumar

A.
Service
Law-U.P.
Basic
Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 14
- G.O. dated 04.12.2020 - Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination
-
Online application forms - Filing - Mistake
- Right to rectify - There was an adequate
disclosure and notice to the candidates
that the data gathered at an earlier stage
would be utilised to take the entire
selection process to its logical conclusion -
Held,
the
process
adopted
by
the
respondents not in violation of Rule 14 - 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. (Para 25 and 50)
B. Constitution of India - Article 14 - G.O.
dated 04.12.2020 - Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination - Two class of
candidates - One class of candidate
entered information of less obtainedmarks than original or high total marks
than original under Para no. 1 and 2, while
another class of candidates entered more
obtained-marks than original or less total
marks than original under Para no. 3 and 4
- Selection of later class of candidates is
made liable to be cancelled - Held, there
is a reasonable and germane classification
between the two classes of candidates -
While candidates falling under paragraphs
1 and 2 stand at a disadvantage, those
who fall under paragraphs 3 and 4 have
gained undue advantage on account of the
nature of the disclosures that were made
by them in the online application forms -
The plea of discrimination found not
sustainable. (Para 27, 35 and 36)
Writ Petition disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 (arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6841 of 2020),
Ram Sharan Maurya & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2. Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC
357
3. Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs St. of Raj. , 2020 SCC
Online SC 997
4. Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014,
Arti Verma Vs St. of U.P decided on 5.2.2014
5. Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018, Jai Karan
Singh & 52 ors. Vs St. of U.P decided on
25.4.2018
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Writ A No. 4653 of 2020, Soni Prajapti Vs St.
of U.P. & 2 ors. decided on 30.7.2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. This batch of writ petitions relates
to the selection and recruitment of
Assistant Teachers under an exercise
initiated by the Department of Basic
Education in the State of U.P. The process
of selection and appointment can be viewed
as comprising of two stages- the first being
the
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination1
conducted
by
the
Examination Regulatory Authority; the
second being the process of inviting
candidates who had successfully passed the
ATRE to participate in a counselling
process and their ultimate appointment in
accordance with merit.

2. The petitioners in this batch are
aggrieved
by
the
decision
of
the
respondents in not permitting them to
rectify information entered by them in the
online application forms submitted in the
ATRE. The petitioners appear to have
incorrectly declared the marks obtained by
them in the High School, Intermediate,
Graduation
or
Training
examinations
resultantly impacting the declarations made
in respect of their quality point marks.
While some petitioners have ascribed a
lesser value to the actual or aggregate
marks of an examination, some have
declared a higher numerical value. The
petitioners also assail the action of the
respondents in the context of the data
collected by the respondents at the stage of
the ATRE being utilised further for the
purposes of completion of the recruitment
of Assistant Teachers.

3. It becomes relevant to note that a
successful passing of the ATRE is one of
the essential prerequisites for appointment
as an Assistant Teacher in terms of the U.P.
Basic
Education
(Teachers)
Service
Rules, 19812. In the second phase,
candidates who had cleared the ATRE were
invited by the respondents to participate in
a counselling process and ultimately upon
drawl of a merit list based on the quality
point marks obtained by each candidate and
invitation of options in respect of preferred
districts, appointments were to be offered.

4. It may at the outset itself be noticed
that this Court has negatived similar
prayers
for
permission
to
rectify
information
comprised
in
the
online
application forms in terms of its decision
rendered in Dharmendra Kumar v. State
of U.P. and Others3 and Hari Nath
Yadav v. Sate of U.P. and Others4. While
dismissing those writ petitions the Court in
Dharmendra Kumar observed: -

".........

Following the principles enunciated in
the Full Bench decision of the Court in
Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (8)
ADJ 219 and the decision of the Division
Bench in Km. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. [Special Appeal Defective No. 582 of
2016] the Court finds no ground to issue
the writs as prayed for. In both the
decisions noted above, the sanctity of a last
date have been duly emphasized.

In Km. Pooja Yadav, the Division
Bench
had
negatived
an
identical
submission of a candidate being permitted
to rectify the details set forth in the online
form after conclusion of the selection
process and held as under: -

"We note that the appellant does
not dispute the fact that she had incorrectly
filled in the column pertaining the marks
obtained by her in the High School
Examination in her online application form.
1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
849
She does not appear to have taken any steps
for rectification of the said mistake till she
was refused permission to participate in the
medical tests which were held on 11 July
2016. The respondents assert that the
recruitment
process
initiated
for
the
purposes of filling up as many as 5,800
vacancies is complete and that they are
presently engaged in the preparation of the
final result. A direction issued at this stage
would clearly result in hindering the
process of finalization of the result in
respect of a recruitment exercise which had
commenced in December 2015. Any
interference by this Court at this stage may
also lead to further complicating the steps
presently being taken by the respondents
and not brooking a situation where similar
complaints and prayers for rectification
may come to be made. This Court,
therefore, comes to the conclusion that no
effective relief can be granted to the
appellant at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly and for reasons assigned
therein, the Court finds no ground to issue
the writs as prayed for. This petition is
dismissed. "

5. While dealing with the petition of
Hari Nath Yadav, the Court held:-

".....Any direction issued at this stage
permitting rectifications in the original
application forms which may have the
effect of disturbing the inter se merit as
framed and embodied in the result dated 12
May 2020 would be not only wholly unfair
to the thousands of selected candidates who
have been awaiting closure but also
adversely impact teaching work in primary
educational institutions throughout the
State.

The Court must also necessarily bear
in mind the imperative of enabling a
completion of a recruitment exercise
undertaken by the State and set at rest all
uncertainties. Permitting the rectification of
forms originally submitted more than a
year ago and at this belated stage would
clearly be detrimental to public interest.

Accordingly and for reasons assigned
hereinabove, the Court finds no ground to
issue the writs as prayed for. This petition
is dismissed. "

6. However and subsequent to the
aforementioned two petitions being decided
and since several similar petitions were
coming before the Court, the respondents
were directed to collate a list of all matters
pertaining
to
ATRE.
While
hearing
respective counsels in Writ A 5008 of
2020, the Court classified matters under
four broad heads and indicated that all
matters pertaining to correction of marks in
the online applications would be put down
for hearing. It is in the above backdrop that
this batch was taken up for final disposal.

7. The Court has heard Sri H.N.
Singh, Sri R.K. Ojha learned senior
counsels, Sri Seemant Singh and other
counsels appearing for the petitioners.
Submissions on behalf of the State
respondents were advanced by Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi
the
learned
Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Bipin
Behari Pandey the Chief Standing Counsel
and Sri P.D. Tripathi who represented the
Basic Education Officer in some of the
matters. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Bipin Behari Pandey learned Chief
Standing
Counsel
have
placed
a
compilation of documents and judgments
which have been duly circulated. They
have also along with an affidavit filed in
connected Writ A 5008 of 2020 brought on
record the Government Order of 4
December 2020 a copy of which has also
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been provided to counsels for petitioners.
The said Government Order comprises the
decision of the State to deal with the
question of inadvertent errors and other
allied issues relating to the recruitment
exercise in question.

8. Before proceeding to enter the
merits of the dispute and since the selection
itself has had a history of litigation, it
would be appropriate to briefly recapitulate
significant events surrounding ATRE and
the recruitment exercise in question. The
same are detailed hereinbelow in the form
of a chronology of events :-

S.
NO.
DATE
EVENT
1.
01.12.1
8
State
Government
issues
an
order
formulating Guidelines
for the conduct of the
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination 2019 for
filling up 69000 posts
of Assistant Teachers.
The Guidelines apart
from setting out the
detailed procedure to
be followed for the
examination also set
out a time schedule for
completion
of
the
entire
process
commencing from 5
December 2018 and
concluding
on
22
January 2019.
2.
05.12.2
018
Public notice is issued
inviting
applications.
Registration
was
opened from 06.12.18
till 20.12.18. Detailed
guidelines in respect of
the
entire
selection
process
were
also
uploaded
and
a
dedicated
weblink
indicated.
3.
20.12.2
018
Registration date was
extended till 22.12.18
to
enable
freshly
passed
TET
2019
candidates
to
also
apply and participate.
4.
-
Upon due scrutiny of
documents
4,31,066
persons were found
eligible to participate
in the examination.
5.
06.01.2
019
Exams
were
successfully
held
across
the
State.
4,09,530
candidates
participated
in
the
same
6.
07.01.2
019
By a G.O. of the said
date, cut off marks
were declared.
General = 97/150 i.e.
65 %
Reserved
=
90/150
i.e.60 %

7.
08.01.2
01
Answer keys for all
four series of question
papers were uploaded
on
the
website.
Objections invited till
11.1.2019.
8.
11.01.2
019
20557 objections to
142/150
questions
received.
9.
18.01.2
019
Committee
of
teachers/ experts gave
their opinion on the
queries
10.
07.01.2
019
Petitions against the
final answer key were
1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
851
filed
before
the
Lucknow Bench of the
Court. These petitions
were
clubbed
with
Writ
Petition
No.
1188/2019
Mohd.
Rizwan v. UP.
11.
29.03.2
019
Judgment
was
delivered
on
the
aforesaid
petition
quashing the cut off
marks
declared
on
7.1.2019. This order
declared the marks to
be kept at par with the
2018 cut-off i.e. 45/40
% for general/reserved
categories
respectively).
12.

A Special Appeal was
filed against the above
order
of
29.3.2019.
This
special
appeal
was clubbed with 16
other special appeals
leading being Special
Appeal No. 156/2019
Raghvendra
Pratap
Singh v. UP.

13.
06.05.2
020
Special Appeals were
allowed and directions
issued for declaration
of results in terms of
the cut off prescribed
in
the
order
of
7.1.2019.
The
challenge to the cut off
fixed
by
Shiksha
Mitras was negatived.
14.
08.05.2
020
Government
Order
was
issued
for
declaration of results
15.
-
Based
on
the
consultations held till
18.01.2019
by
the
expert committee, 3
questions were found
to be out of syllabus.
Challenges to the rest
of the questions were
declared to be without
any
merit.
The
answers in respect of
these
questions
as
declared
on
08.01.2019 were held
to
be
the
correct
answers
by
the
committee.
16.
08.05.2
020
Final answer key was
published.
17.
12.05.2
020
Results were declared.
1,46,060
out
of
431466
passed
the
exam.
18.
16.05.2
020
Government
Order
was issued for taking
further
steps
for
appointment
of
Assistant
Teachers
including inviting of
district wise options
for
69,000
vacant
positions.
Note:
This
order
informed
all
candidates
that
the
data already captured
during the ATRE in
respect of educational
qualifications
would
be
utilized
and
candidates would have
to
fill
the
online
application from the
stage of district wise
preferences.
19.
21.05.2
020
SLP filed by Ram
Sharan Maurya against
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the judgment rendered
by the Division Bench
at Lucknow in the
matter of Raghvendra
Pratap
Singh
and
others comes up for
hearing
before
the
Supreme Court where
interim directions were
issued restraining the
State from disturbing
the working of Shiksha
Mitras
while
permitting filling up of
remaining vacancies.
20.
01.06.2
020
A
district
wise
allotment
list
for
69000
posts
was
published
by
the
Secretary of the Board
in terms of the online
applications received.
Secretary also ordered
the
counselling
process to begin from
03.06.2020.
21.
03.06.2
020
Petitions
challenging
the final answer key
came to be filed before
the Lucknow Bench.
These petitions were
clubbed with Service
Single
8056/2020
Rishabh Mishra v. UP.
An order was passed
by the Bench staying
the
notification
of
08.05.2020
and
all
further
proceedings
pursuant thereto.
22.
09.06.2
020
In
view
of
the
aforesaid order, the
ongoing
counselling
process was adjourned
until further orders by
the Secretary.
23.
09.06.2
020

In
SLP
6687/2020
Subedar Singh v. UP
taken
against
the
judgment rendered by
the Division Bench on
6.5.2020,
Supreme
Court permitted the
State Government to
complete
the
appointment process in
respect of all vacancies
except
37,339
positions
which
represented
the
number
of
Shiksha
Mitras
who
had
participated and were
declared successful in
the ATRE.
24.
12.06.2
020
Special
Appeal
154/2020
Pariksha
Nyamak Adhikari, UP
v. Rishabh Mishra is
filed
before
the
Lucknow Bench. In
this appeal the order of
03.06.2020 passed in
Rishabh Mishra v. UP
(8056/2020) is stayed.
The
Court
further
directs the State to
complete
the
appointment process in
compliance with the
Supreme Court interim
orders in Ram Sharan
and Subedar Singh
25.
11.10.2
020
In compliance of the
above
direction,
all
except
37339
i.e.
31661 out of 69000
positions were to be
filled in the first phase.
Finally
and
after
1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
853
implementation
of
reservation provisions,
a list for selection of
31227 position was
issued by the Secretary
along with a direction
for
counselling
and
issuance
of
appointment letters in
the allotted districts.
26.
18.11.2
020
The Supreme Court
upholds the judgment
rendered
by
the
Division
Bench
in
Raghvendra
Pratap
Singh and dismisses
the
SLP
of
Ram
Sharan Maurya and
other
connected
matters. The cut off as
prescribed for ATRE
was
upheld.
The
challenge
laid
by
Shiksha Mitras was
negatived. SLP filed
by B.Ed. candidates
also disposed of. The
State held entitled to
fill all posts in terms of
the result declared on
12.05.2020
and
in
accordance with law.
27.
28.11.2
020
Secretary
issues
directions for filling up
the remainder 37,339
posts
and
for
completion
of
the
second
round
of
counselling
between
2.12.2020
to
4.12.2020.

9. Before proceeding to set out the
submissions
addressed,
it
becomes
pertinent to note that none of the petitions
impugn the notification issued on 16 May
2020 or the subsequent instructions issued
to facilitate conclusion of the selection
process. This assumes significance since
these notifications did clarify that the data
collected at the stage of submission of
online applications for the ATRE would be
utilised
for
completing
the
selection
process. The Court also notes that though
this notification was issued as far back as
May 2020, it was never challenged by any
of the petitioners prior to submission of
their online applications or even thereafter.
The procedure adopted by the respondents
was questioned for the first time only
during the course of oral submissions.
While these two reasons would have been
sufficient to negate a challenge on that
score, since learned senior counsel laid
considerable emphasis on the issue and
sought to underline the importance of the
challenge, the Court deems it expedient in
the interest of justice to deal with the
challenge on merits rather than shutting out
the petitioners for reasons aforenoted. The
Court also deems it expedient to lend a
quietus to these and other questions raised
at this stage of the selection where
proceedings have virtually reached the end
and appointments already made.

10. From the submissions addressed
by respective counsels, the Court deems it
appropriate to formulate the following
seminal issues which fall for determination:
-

A. Government Order of 4 December
2020 being in violation of the procedure
laid forth in Rule 14 of the Rules

B. Whether the Government Order of
4 December 2020 can be said to be
discriminatory or unfair?

C. Whether the petitioners are
entitled to the permission to carry out
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
corrections and rectifications of entries
made in the online application forms?

A.
CHALLENGE
TO
THE
GOVERNMENT
ORDER
OF
4
DECEMBER 2020

11.

The
Government
Order
aforenoted was challenged on two grounds-
firstly on the ground of it being in violation
of the procedure prescribed by Rule 14 and
secondly on the plank of it being
discriminatory and unfair.

12. Sri H.N. Singh learned senior
counsel who sought permission to address
the Court on behalf of the various
petitioners
was
invited
to
make
submissions. Sri Singh principally assailed
the notifications issued post the completion
of the ATRE on the ground of them being
in violation of Rule 14 as it stood after the
24th Amendment to the Rules. It was
contended that these notifications deprived
the petitioners of their right to rectify the
mistakes inadvertently made while filling
their online applications for the ATRE.

13. Taking the Court through Rule 14
Sri Singh submitted that the provision
clearly mandated the respondents inviting
all applicants who had successfully cleared
the
ARTE
to
submit
their
online
application forms thus affording them an
opportunity to provide all particulars
including relating to the computation of
marks as per Appendix I and II of the
Rules. According to Sri Singh if this
procedure had been adhered to the
applicants who may have committed
inadvertent mistakes while filling their
online application forms for the ATRE
would have had an opportunity to rectify
the same. Sri Singh would submit that the
original application form which was
submitted by candidates was only for the
purpose of the ATRE which in any case
was merely a qualifying examination
enabling candidates to ultimately seek
appointment as Assistant Teachers based
on the scores obtained in that examination
and other factors as contemplated under the
Appendices.

14. Sri Singh apprised the Court that
at the second stage of the recruitment
process, the candidates were not afforded
the option of filling particulars relating to
their
High
School,
Intermediate,
Graduation
or
Training
Qualification
examinations
since
that
data
was
automatically collected from the original
online application form submitted in
connection with the ATRE upon a
candidate registering for participating in the
counselling process.

15. Sri Singh contended that there was
no occasion for the computation of quality
points in accordance with the Appendices at
any stage prior to the second stage since the
ATRE was only a qualifying examination
concerning the eligibility of candidates to be
appointed. It was in that context that it was
contended
the
necessity
of
obtaining
particulars
relating
to
High
School,
Intermediate,
Graduation
and
Training
examination marks afresh and at this stage.
This according to Sri Singh is the clear intent
of Rule 14(3) where the merit list is
ultimately drawn on the basis of the quality
points and weightage as specified in
Appendix I.

16. In order to appreciate the aforenoted
submissions it would be apposite to extract
Rule 14 which reads thus: -

[14. Procedure of Selection. -
(1) Determination of vacancies. - In respect
1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
855
of appointment, by direct recruitment to the
post of Assistant Master of Junior Basic
Schools under clause (a) of Rule 5, the
appointing authority shall determine the
number of vacancies as also the number
vacancies to be reserved for candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes,
Backward
Classes
and
other
categories under Rule 9 and forward to the
Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
Board, Prayagraj. Information of compiled
vacancies as per reservation shall be
provided by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj to the
Examination
Body.
For
the
notified
vacancies
an
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination
shall
be
conducted by the Examination Body
authorised as such by the Government and
result, according to reservation, shall be
provided to Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Board, Prayagraj.

Thereafter, an advertisement for
recruitment will be published in at least two
leading daily newspapers having adequate
circulation in the State by the Secretary,
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board,
Prayagraj inviting online applications from
candidates
possessing
prescribed
educational and trainings qualification and
passed teacher eligibility test, conducted by
the Government or by the Government of
India
and
passed
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment Examination conducted by the
Government, in which cadre wise district
option will be filled by the candidates.

(2) The Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj shall
scrutinise
the
applications
received
in
pursuance of the advertisement under clause
(a) sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 and prepare a list
of such persons who possess the prescribed
academic qualifications and passed Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination and be
eligible for appointment.

(3) The name of candidates in the
list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance
with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14
shall then be arranged in such manner that the
candidate shall be arranged in accordance
with the quality points and weightage as
specified in the Appendix I:

Provided that if two or more
candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate
senior in age shall be placed higher.

Provided that a person working as
Shiksha Mitra in Junior Basic Schools run by
Basic Shiksha Parishad shall be given
weightage in the recruitment of Assistant
Teacher, only in two consecutive Assistant
Teacher recruitment conducted by the
Government after July 25, 2017.

Thereafter, cadre wise district will
be allotted to the candidates as per their
quality points and options by the Secretary,
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board,
Prayagraj and list will be sent to the
appointing authority.

(4) No person shall be eligible for
appointment unless his or her name is
included in the list prepared under sub-rule
(3).

(5) The list prepared under sub-rule
(2) and received in accordance with sub-rule
(3) of Rule 14 from the Secretary, Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj,
shall be forwarded by the appointing
authority to the Selection Committee.]

17. A careful reading of the aforesaid
provision
establishes
the
following
procedure to be adopted for appointment of
Assistant Teachers. The first preparatory
step contemplated under Rule 14(1) is the
determination
of
vacancies
by
the
appointing
authority
which
is
then
forwarded to the Secretary of the Board.
The information so collected from the
various appointing authorities is then
forwarded
by
the
Secretary
to
the
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Examining Body with a request to conduct
the ATRE. The Rule then contemplates the
Examining Body conducting the ATRE and
providing the final results thereof to the
Secretary.
It
is
thereafter
that
an
advertisement for recruitment comes to be
published inviting online applications from
candidates who apart from possessing the
essential qualifications prescribed under the
Rules have successfully passed the ATRE.
It becomes pertinent to note that in this
online application form candidates are
required to indicate their district wise
options.

18. In terms of Rule 14(2) the
Secretary upon due scrutiny of the
applications so received then proceeds to
draw a list of persons who are found to
possess
the
stipulated
essential
qualifications and have passed the ATRE.
Sub Rule (3) requires the Board to arrange
the names of candidates in accordance with
the quality points and weightage as
specified in Appendix I. This constitutes
the merit list for the ultimate appointment
of Assistant Teachers. Upon completion of
these processes the Secretary proceeds with
the allocation of cadre wise districts to
candidates. Sub Rule (4) enjoins that no
person shall be eligible for appointment
unless the name of that individual finds
place in the list prepared under sub rule (3).

19. Having noticed the broad scheme
of Rule 14 the stage is now set to evaluate
the submissions of Sri Singh. The Court
finds itself unable to accept the contention
of the respondents having violated Rule 14
for
reasons
which
stand
recorded
hereinafter.

20. At the very outset the Court fails
to find any fundamental or inherent
illegality in the respondents having collated
data which stood captured in the original
online applications submitted by candidates
in the ATRE. Rule 14 does not engraft any
such express or implicit prohibition.
4,31,466 candidates had registered with the
Examining Body to participate in the
ATRE. A total of 4,09,530 candidates
ultimately participated in that examination.
The particulars of 4,09,530 candidates
including their details in connection with
Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Appendix I [Quality
Points computation based on High School,
Intermediate, Graduation and Training
exam results] came to be collected at this
stage.
Upon
culmination
of
ATRE,
1,46,060
candidates
were
declared
qualified. Their essential and preparatory
data thus stood captured and collated by the
respondents.
The
submission
of
a
duplication of this data or the creation of a
fresh database in respect of the above
information
already
existing
neither
appeals to logic nor is it established to be
expedient considering the magnitude of the
exercise that would have had to be
undertaken bearing in mind the size of the
pool of successful candidates, the scrutiny
and verification of testimonials and other
factors. It would have clearly amounted to
placing an immense administrative burden
on the respondents.

21. On a more fundamental plane,
the Court fails to discern any such
mandatory requirement placed by Rule
14. Regard may be had to the fact that the
only specific information which Rule
14(1) speaks of is "......inviting online
applications from candidates possessing
prescribed
educational
and
training
qualifications...... and passed Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination
conducted by the Government, in which
cadre wise district option will be filled by
the candidates."
1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
857

22. This Court thus upon a holistic
reading of Rule 14 fails to find any
statutory
imperative,
explicit
or
implicit, commanding the respondents
to gather data and information on
subjects set out in Appendix I afresh
even though the same may have already
stood created and stored for access,
albeit gathered during an ancillary yet
indispensable
component
of
the
selection process- the ATRE.

23. The Court also bears in
consideration the contents of the notice
dated 16 May 2020 which clearly put
all candidates to notice of the data
collected
earlier
being
utilised
to
complete the selection process and take
it to its culmination.

24. The relevant extracts of that
notice are set out hereunder:

"ऑनलाइन ई आवेदन पत्र िा प्रारूप,
आवश्यि सदशा सनदेश एवं जनपदवाि रिम्मक्तयों
िा
सवविर्
वेबसाइट
https://upbasiceduboard.gov.in/ पि सदनांि
18.5.2020 िे अपिान्ह से सदनांि 06.6.2020
साय 6 बजे ति उपलब्ध िहेगा । अभ्यथी द्वािा
सदनांि 18.5.2020 िे अपिान्ह से सदनांि
26.5.2020 िी िासत्र 12 बजे ति सनर्ावरित
वेबसाइट पि ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र ििा जा
सिेगा । अभ्यथी िो 69000 सहायि अध्यापिो
िी िती हेतु आयोसजत िती पिीक्षा िे सलए सनगवत
सिया गया अनुक्रमांि, जन्मसतसथ तथा मोबाइल
संख्या िो सनर्ावरित वेबसाइट पि ििना होगा,
सजसिे उपिाि अभ्यथी िी उक्त मोबाइल पि ओ
टी पी (वन टाइम पॉसवर्व ) प्राप्त होगा, सजसे
ििने पि ही यह आवेदन पत्र में वांसछत प्रसवसष्टयों
िो पूर्व िि सिेगा । सवशेष रूप से उल्लेखनीय
है सि सहायि अध्यापि पद पि सनयुम्मक्त हेतु
अभ्यथी िो िती पिीक्षा हेतु ििे गये आवेदन पत्र
सि प्रसवसष्टया प्रदसशवत हो जायेगी सजसमे सिसी
प्रिाि िा परिवतवन नहीं सिया जा सिेगा । उक्त
िे असतरिक्त िसतपय अन्य वांसछत प्रसवसष्टयों िो
अभ्यसथवयों द्वािा ििते हुए आवेदन पत्र िो पूर्व
ििना होगा । एि बाि आवेदन पत्र पूर्व ििने िे
उपिाि उसमे सिसी प्रिाि िा संशोर्न नहीं
सिया जा सिेगा ।

उपयुवक्त सहायि अध्यापि िती पिीक्षा-
2019 में उत्तीर्व अभ्यसथवयों द्वािा मात्र एि
ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र ििा जायेगा सजसमे
अभ्यथी द्वािा प्रदेश िे समस्त 75 जनपदों िा
सविल्प अपनी इच्छानुसाि विीयताक्रम में ििा
जाना असनवायव होगा तथा वह अपने गुर्ांि
/िािांि एवं विीयता तथा जनपद हेतु सनर्ावरित
वगवाि/ श्रेर्ीवाि रिम्मक्तयों िे अनुरूप आवंसटत
जनपद में सदनांि 03.06.2020 से 06.06.2020
िे मध्य सायोसजत िॉउम्मिसलंग में प्रसतिाग िि
सिेगा । िॉउम्मिसलंग में प्रसतिाग ििने िा
तात्पयव यह िदासप नहीं है सि वह सनयुम्मक्त हेतु
पात्र है । वांसछत असनवायव शैसक्षि /प्रसशक्षर्
योग्यताओं /वगव श्रेर्ी िे सत्यापनोपिांत अहव पाये
जाने पि अभ्यथी िो उनिे आवंसटत जनपद में
सनयुम्मक्त प्रदान सि जायेगी । सिािी/अर्वसििािी
/बेससि सशक्षा परिषद् िे अर्ीन पूवव से िायवित
अभ्यसथवयों िो िॉउम्मिसलंग िे समय सक्षम
प्रासर्िािी से एन0 ओ0 सी0 प्राप्त िि प्रस्तुत
ििना असनवायव होगा ।

25. There was thus an adequate
disclosure and notice to the candidates
that the data gathered at an earlier stage
would be utilised to take the entire
selection
process
to
its
logical
conclusion. The process adopted by the
respondents is not found to be in
violation of Rule 14. Quite apart from
the above the Court bears in mind the
mammoth exercise that would have had
to be undertaken by the respondents if
the
submission
advanced
by
the
petitioners were accepted. The Court
also fails to find any prejudice caused
to the candidates in light of the caveats
which unambigously placed them on
caution to ensure that the entries
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entered in the online applications were
accurate
and
that
no
further
amendments would be permitted once
the form was saved and locked. This
aspect will be further evident from the
discussion that follows.

26. On a consideration of the
aforesaid the Court is of the firm view that
the challenge to the Government Order on
this
score
must
necessarily
fail.
It
accordingly stands negatived.

B. THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
OF
4
DECEMBER
BEING
DISCRIMINATORY AND UNFAIR

27. While the aforesaid Government
Order deals with various issues relating to
ATRE, since this batch is concerned only
with the prohibition to rectify online
application forms insofar as they relate to
the marks obtained by candidates in the
High School, Intermediate, Graduation and
Training
examinations,
it
would
be
pertinent
to
extract
hereinbelow
the
decision of the State Government as
comprised in the aforesaid order insofar as
this aspect is concerned: -

"दबन्दु सांख्या -2 : अभ्यदर्थडयोां द्वािा
प्रस्तुत हाईस्कूि , इण्टिमीदर्एट, स्नातक,
प्रदिक्षण के प्राप्ाांक एवां पूणाांक तर्था प्राप्
एक्सेि सीट के पूणाांक व प्राप्ाांक में दिन्नता-
-

उपयुवक्त प्रिाि िे सवसंगसतयों िे सम्बि
में सनम्नानुसाि िायवाही सिये जाने िा सनर्वय
सलया गया है:--

(1) यसद अभ्यथी द्वािा मूल अंिपत्र िे
सापेक्ष प्राप्तांि िम ििा गया है तो ऐसे अभ्यथी
से िम अंि ििने िा समुसचत असिलेखीय
आर्ाि प्राप्त िि सलया जाय । समुसचत आर्ाि
पाये जाने पि अभ्यथी से इस आशय िा शपथ
पत्र असनवायव रूप से लेिि सि वह अपनी ििे
हुए िम अंि िे आर्ाि पि चयन से सहमत है
तथा िसवष्य में असर्ि प्राप्तांि िे आर्ाि पि
मेरिट परिवतवन िी मांग नहीं ििेगा । चूंसि
मेरिट में िोई परिवतवन नहीं होना है, इस िािर्
उसिो सनयुम्मक्त पत्र सनगवत िि सदया जाय ।

(2) यसद अभ्यथी द्वािा मूल अंिपत्र िे
सापेक्ष पूर्ाांि असर्ि ििा गया है तो ऐसे
अभ्यथी से असर्ि पूर्ाांि ििने िा समुसचत
असिलेखीय आर्ाि प्राप्त िि सलया जाय ।
समुसचत आर्ाि पाये जाने पि अभ्यथी से इस
आशय िा शपथ पत्र लेिि सि वह अपने ििे
हुए असर्ि पूर्ाांि िे आर्ाि पि चयन से
सहमत है तथा िसवष्य में मूल/िम पूर्ाांि िे
आर्ाि पि मेरिट परिवतवन िी मांग नहीं ििेगा ।
चूंसि मेरिट में िोई परिवतवन नहीं होना है, इस
िािर् उसिो सनयुम्मक्त पत्र सनगवत िि सदया जाय
।

(3) ऐसे अभ्यथी जो आवेदन पत्र में शैसक्षि
अहताव में प्राप्त वास्तसवि अंि से असर्ि
प्राप्तांि ििें हैं, िे सम्बि में उल्लेखनीय है सि
चूंसि मेरिट अभ्यथी द्वािा अंसित प्राप्तांि िे
आर्ाि पि सनर्ावरित होता है अतः यसद उनिो
वास्तसवि िम प्राप्तांि िे आर्ाि पि चयन
सिया जाता है तो मेरिट परिवसतवत हो जाएगी ।
इससे पूिी चयन सूची परिवसतवत हो जाएगी ।
वास्तसवि प्राप्तांि से असर्ि अंि ििने िा
उद्देश्य येन-िेन प्रिािेर् चयसनत होने िा िी हो
सिता है, उक्त िे असतरिक्त मा0 उच्चतम
न्यायलय िे आदेश सदनांि 18.11.2020 द्वािा
पूवव में प्रिासशत िी गयी मेरिट सूची (चयन
सूची) िे आर्ाि पि सनयुम्मक्त िी प्रसक्रया पूर्व
ििने िे सनदेश सदये गये हैं । उक्त िे आलोि
में चयन सूची/ मेरिट सलस्ट में सिसी प्रिाि िा
परिवतवन सिया जाना उसचत नहीं है । इस िािर्
ऐसे अभ्यसथवयों िा चयन सनिस्त िि सदया जाय ।

(4) ऐसे अभ्यथी जो आवेदन पत्र में शैसक्षि
अहताव िे पूर्ाांि िो वास्तसवि पूर्ाांि से िम
ििें है, िे सम्बि में उल्लेखनीय है सि चूंसि
1 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
859
मेरिट अभ्यथी द्वािा अंसित प्राप्तांि िे आर्ाि
पि सनर्ावरित होता है अतः यसद उनिो वास्तसवि
असर्ि पूर्ाांि िे आर्ाि पि चयन सिया जाता
है तो मेरिट परिवसतवत हो जाएगी एवं इससे पूिी
चयन सूची परिवसतवत हो जायेगी । वास्तसवि
पूर्ाांि से िम अंि ििने िा उद्देश्य येन-िेन
प्रिािेर् चयसनत होने िा िी हो सिता है ।
उक्त िे असतरिक्त मा0 उच्चतम न्यायलय िे
आदेश सदनांि 18.11.2020 द्वािा पूवव में
प्रिासशत िी गयी मेरिट सूची (चयन सूची) िे
आर्ाि पि सनयुम्मक्त िी प्रसक्रया पूर्व ििने िे
सनदेश सदये गये हैं । उक्त िे आलोि में चयन
सूची/ मेरिट सलस्ट में सिसी प्रिाि िा परिवतवन
सिया जाना उसचत नहीं है । इस िािर् ऐसे
अभ्यसथवयों िा चयन सनिस्त िि सदया जाय।"

28. Before proceeding to analyse the
decision taken, it would be pertinent to
bear in mind that Issue No. 2 and its
various sub paragraphs use the expression
'प्राप्तांि' and 'पूर्ाांि'. It is not disputed
inter partes that the word 'प्राप्तांि' would
mean the actual total marks obtained by a
candidate in a particular examination
while the expression 'पूर्ाांि' would mean
the total aggregate marks assigned for all
papers/subjects
in
that
particular
examination and against which marks
would have been given. To explain it a
little differently, while the first expression
thus means the total marks in fact awarded
to the candidate across all units comprised
in that examination, the second means the
combined, overall or composite total of
the various units against which marks
have been awarded. This issue assumes
significance since Appendix I requires
quality point marks to be computed on the
basis of a formula of which "percentage of
marks" obtained at the High School,
Intermediate, Graduation and Training
Examination is a component.

29. Paragraph-1 deals with a situation
where the candidate has inadvertently filled
in a figure in respect of total marks lower
than those disclosed in the original
marksheet. In respect of such cases the
Government Order stipulates that subject to
the candidate giving an undertaking that he
would not raise any claim on the basis of
the higher marks shown in the original
marksheet, appointment may be offered to
him. Paragraph-2 then contemplates a
situation where a candidate has by mistake
ascribed a higher value to the composite or
overall marks of that particular examination
when
compared
with
the
original
marksheet. For this category of mistake
also the State has taken a decision to permit
such candidates to seek appointment
subject to an undertaking being given that
they would not raise any claim in future for
change of their merit position based on the
total composite or aggregate marks as
shown in the original marksheet.

30. In terms of the provisions made in
Paragraph-3 the State has taken a conscious
decision to disqualify all such candidates
who have filled in the total marks in excess
of that mentioned in the original marksheet.
A similar decision has been taken in respect
of that category of candidates who have in
their online application forms placed the
total composite or aggregate marks of a
particular examination at a value lower
than
that
disclosed
in
the
original
marksheet. As is evident from a reading of
Paragraph-4 these candidates also stand
disqualified.

31. In light of the aforesaid decision
taken, while all those petitioners and
candidates who fall within paragraphs-1
and
2
would
be
entitled
to
seek
appointment subject to the furnishing of an
undertaking as contemplated, those who
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fall within the ambit of paragraphs 3 and 4
stand excluded and they shall not be
considered further for appointment. The
principal dispute which is raised is in
respect of those petitioners and candidates
who would fall within the ambit of
paragraphs 3 and 4.

32. Upon a holistic reading of
paragraphs 1 to 4, it appears that the
primary intent of the State Government
appears to have been to ensure that the
merit list and the final results which were
ultimately published on 12 May 2020 need
not be revised, amended or reopened.