# Ruksar Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-03
- **Case number:** Wrti A No. 4677 of 2020
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ruksar-khan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46042
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection/Recruitment
- Appendix-I to the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers)
Service
Rules
1981
(as
amended vide (Twentieth Amendment)
Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 09.11.2017; GO dated
01.12.2018: Schedule II; Advertisement
issued by the Examination Regulatory
Authority,
U.P.,
Prayagraj,
dated
05.12.2018.

The
petitioners
qualified
the
written
examination. They committed mistakes while
filling
up
various
particulars,
personal,
educational and others, in their online
registration form. Respondents refused to
allow the correction and rectification of those
mistakes. Hence, this writ is before the Court
to command the respondents to permit the
petitioners to rectify their mistakes. According
to petitioners, mistakes have occurred on
account of a 'human error' and therefore, it is
arbitrary not to permit them to reform those
errors. (Para 7)

Court held that each candidate necessarily
must bear the consequences of his
failure to fill up the application form
correctly. In matters of public affairs, like
the process of recruitment to posts under the
State, there has to be an element of
certainty. The process of recruitment must
proceed on the foundation of firm and reliable
data.
A
public
recruitment
cannot
be
permitted to be a shaky affair with shifting
positions of aspirants about their candidature.
If this were to be permitted, it would
introduce uncertainties in the recruitment
process leading to its embarrassment. (Para
56, 57, 58, 62)

B. Principle of sub-silentio - Precedents,
sub-silentio and without argument, are
of no merit - The decision has a value of
precedent, where it lays down a principle
governing a point that arises for consideration
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in a subsequent decision. A fortiori a decision
that does not enunciate a principle of law in
the
context
of
facts
involved
after
consideration of arguments must be regarded
not binding on a Court before which the
relevant point subsequently arises. The
decision is regarded to pass sub silentio.
(Para 41, 42)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,906 of 103,452. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39906 for what follows._

8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31
considered in next stages, in accordance
with Rule 15(4) of the Recruitment
Rules, considering that the petitioners
have been found successful in the
Physical Standard Test, conducted by the
Board constituted in terms of the order
dated 03.02.2020 passed by this Court.
This
exercise
shall
be
done
as
expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of six weeks from the
date a certified copy of this order is
produced
before
the
Chairman/`Secretary, the Uttar Pradesh
Police
Recruitment
and
Promotion
Board, 19C, Tulsiganga Complex Vidhan
Sabha Marg, Lucknow, respondent-4

2. Office is directed to supply a
certified copy of the report to the learned
Standing Counsel free of cost who shall
transmit
it
to
respondent-4/
Chairman/`Secretary, the Uttar Pradesh
Police
Recruitment
and
Promotion
Board, 19C, Tulsiganga Complex Vidhan
Sabha Marg, Lucknow.

3. The said report shall form
part of the record of the present writ
petition as well.

28. The writ petition is dismissed
with respect to petitioner-6.
----------
(2020)08ILR A31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Wrti A No. 4677 of 2020
connected with other cases

Ruksar Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri Anurag
Dubey, Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh

A. Service Law - Selection/Recruitment
- Appendix-I to the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers)
Service
Rules
1981
(as
amended vide (Twentieth Amendment)
Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 09.11.2017; GO dated
01.12.2018: Schedule II; Advertisement
issued by the Examination Regulatory
Authority,
U.P.,
Prayagraj,
dated
05.12.2018.

The
petitioners
qualified
the
written
examination. They committed mistakes while
filling
up
various
particulars,
personal,
educational and others, in their online
registration form. Respondents refused to
allow the correction and rectification of those
mistakes. Hence, this writ is before the Court
to command the respondents to permit the
petitioners to rectify their mistakes. According
to petitioners, mistakes have occurred on
account of a 'human error' and therefore, it is
arbitrary not to permit them to reform those
errors. (Para 7)

Court held that each candidate necessarily
must bear the consequences of his
failure to fill up the application form
correctly. In matters of public affairs, like
the process of recruitment to posts under the
State, there has to be an element of
certainty. The process of recruitment must
proceed on the foundation of firm and reliable
data.
A
public
recruitment
cannot
be
permitted to be a shaky affair with shifting
positions of aspirants about their candidature.
If this were to be permitted, it would
introduce uncertainties in the recruitment
process leading to its embarrassment. (Para
56, 57, 58, 62)

B. Principle of sub-silentio - Precedents,
sub-silentio and without argument, are
of no merit - The decision has a value of
precedent, where it lays down a principle
governing a point that arises for consideration
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in a subsequent decision. A fortiori a decision
that does not enunciate a principle of law in
the
context
of
facts
involved
after
consideration of arguments must be regarded
not binding on a Court before which the
relevant point subsequently arises. The
decision is regarded to pass sub silentio.
(Para 41, 42)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:-
1. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Synthetics and
Chemicals Limited & anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139
(Para 41)

2. Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs Mahadeva
Shetty & anr., (2003) 7 SCC 197 (Para 42)

3. Ram Manohar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & 3
ors., Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013, decided
on 30.05.2013 (Para 53)

4. Smt. Arti Verma Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors.,
Special Appeal Defective no. 123 of 2014,
decided on 05.02.2014 (Para 55)

5. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava & 60 ors. Vs St.
of U.P. & 2 ors., Writ-A No. 4070 of 2020,
decided on 30.05.2020 (Para 57, 59)

6. Ramhari Gurjar Vs St. of U.P & 2 ors., WritA No. 4087 of 2020, decided on 11.06.2020
(Para 58, 59)

7. Deepti Singh Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors., Writ-A
No. 4552 of 2020, decided on 23.05.2020
(Para 63)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Bharti Vs St. & ors. and connected matters,
Rajasthan HC in SB Civil Writ Petition No.
4798 of 2012, decided on 13.09.2012 (Para
13, 16)

2. Km. Archana Rastogi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2012 (3) ADJ 219 (Para 28, 29, 35)

3. Amar Bahadur & 25 ors., Writ-A No. 4321
of 2020, decided on 19.06.2020 (Para 30)

4. Pinkee Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors., Writ-A No.
4088 of 2020, decided on 04.06.2020 (Para
31, 34, 35)

5. Anshuman Singh & ors. Vs.. St. of U.P.
through Additional Chief Secretary, Basic
Education & ors., Service Single No. 9597 of
2020, decided on 22.06.2020 (Para 32, 35)
6. Rakesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors.,
Writ-A No. 4065 of 2020, decided on
30.05.2020 (Para 33, 35)

7. Babita Pandey & 3 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 4
ors., Writ-A No. 5632 of 2019, decided on
12.04.2019 (Para 36)

8. Sachin Sharma & 3 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 3
ors., Writ-A No. 19162 of 2018, decided on
10.09.2018 (Para 37)

9. Suman Vaishya Vs Managing Director U.P.
Cooperative Bank Ltd. Lko. & anr., Writ-A No.
18271 of 2018, decided on 28.08.2018 (Para
38)

10. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & 3
ors., Writ-A No. 19606 of 2018, decided on
14.09.2018 (Para 39)

11. Punit Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. through
Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Lko. &
ors., Service Single No. 9126 of 2020, decided
on 16.06.2020 (Para 20)

12. Dheerender Singh Paliwal Vs U.P.S.C.,
(2017) 11 SCC 276 (Para 44 to 47)

13. Smt. Rajni Shukla Vs U.O.I. & 3 ors., WritA No 40159 of 2016, decided on 08.03.2017
(Para 48)

14. Sanjay Raj Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2013 (2)
ADJ 558 (Para 50)

15. Mritunjay Kumar Mishra & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. & anr., Writ-A No. 3347 of 2019, decided
on 07.03.2019 (Para 54)

16. Jai Karan Singh & 52 ors. Vs. St. of U.P.
through Secretary & 4 ors., Special Appeal No.
90 of 2018, decided on 25.04.2018 (Para 54)
8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
33
17. Kanchan Bala & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2018 (2) AWC 1233 (Para 55)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. "To err is human; to forgive,
divine," wrote Alexander Pope in "An
Essay on Criticism". He said this all
about criticism of poetry; more about the
critics approach to the work of others. Is
it possible to apply the idea as a principle
of remedial resort in legal matters? More
particularly, can this idea inspire a
selecting body or the employer, inviting
applications for appointment to public
posts, to allow candidates to correct
mistakes in their application forms about
data - figures and categories - whereon
the
relative
merit
of
competing
candidates depends?

2. These writ petitions were heard
together as common questions of facts
and law are involved. Accordingly, all
the writ petitions are being decided by
this judgment.

3. The petitioner, Ruksar Khan and
others in the connected writ petitions are
all candidates who have applied for posts
of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools
maintained by the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Board. They have applied in
response to an advertisement dated
05.12.2018, inviting applications from
eligible
candidates,
who
wish
to
participate in the Assistant Teachers
Recruitment
Examination,
2019,
convened by the Examination Regulatory
Authority, Prayagraj. The applications
were required by the advertisement to be
submitted online for registration of
candidates intending to participate in the
selection
examination.
In
these
applications,
the
candidates
were
required to fill up important personal
details, educational qualifications etc.,
mentioning particulars such as roll
numbers, relative to which a particular
educational qualification was earned, the
marks secured and the relative total
marks, Special Reservation Category, if
any, and the like. The advertisement bore
a bold caution, figuring as a centrepiece,
that makes candidates aware about a
declaration they would have to make,
while filling up the online registration
form. It reads (translated into English
from Hindi vernacular):

"I have done a printout of the
online registration form and compared
the entries made there with the original
documents and found them to be correct
and that I fully agree to finally
submit/save
my
registration
form
(application). After submission/ final
saving, I shall not be entitled to any
opportunity to amend my application."

4. The selection for the post of
Assistant Teachers in question is a twotier process. The first is a written
examination of eligibility on the basis of
which candidates out of the total
applicants, are to be selected for the next
and the final stage of the recruitment
process. Those selected in the written
examination
would
be
called
for
counselling.
The
counselling
would
involve allocation of quality points and
weightage, worked out on the basis of
marks secured by a candidate in different
examinations, leading to certificates/
degrees specified, such as High School,
Intermediate, Graduation, etc. Weightage
in numerical terms is reserved for such
candidates who have served as Shiksha
Mitra in Junior Basic Schools run by the
Basic Education Board.
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Broadly speaking, the 40%
component
of
quality
points
and
weightage would depend on the score
determined during counselling based on
the prescribed formula shown in tabular
form hereinafter, whereas the remainder
60% component would be based on a
candidate's marks earned in the written
examination. The merit of a candidate
would be the aggregate of 60% of marks
earned in the written examination and the
rest worked out in terms of quality points
and weightage. The precise division of
marks, quality points and weightage
between the written examination and
counselling,
including
the
formula
according to which it is to be determined,
is set out in Appendix-I to the U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981 [as amended vide (Twentieth
Amendment)
Rules,
2017
w.e.f.
09.11.2017].
Appendix-I
(supra)
is
reproduced below:

"APPENDIX-I

[See Rule 14(3)]

Quality points and weightage
for selection of

 candidates
1.
High
School

Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 10
 100
2.
Intermediat
e
Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 10
 100

Graduation
Degree
Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 10
 100
4.
B.T.C.
Training
Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 10
 100
5.
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitme
nt
Examinatio
n
Percentage of Marks in the
examination x 60
 100
6.
Weightage
Teaching
experience
s
as
shikshamit
ra or as
teacher
working as
such
in
junior
basic
schools
run
by
Basic
Shiksha
Parishad.
2.5 marks per completed
teaching
year,
up
to
maximum
25
marks,
whichever is less.

Notes 1 - If two or more
candidates have equal quality points, the
name of the candidate who is senior in
age shall be placed higher in the list.

2. If two or more candidates
have equal quality points and age, the
name of the candidate shall be placed in
the list in English alphabetical order."

6. The selection would be based on
the
inter
se
merit
of
candidates,
juxtaposed against the total number of
posts advertised. Here, the total number
of posts is 69,000. A total number of
8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
35
4,31,466 candidates applied and were
registered. Of them, 4,09,530 appeared in
the written examination. Out of those
who took the written examination,
1,46,060 candidates qualified and have
been called for the next stage of
recruitment, that is counselling.

7. The petitioners, who are
seventeen in number have qualified the
written examination, except one. They
say that they have committed mistakes
while filling up various particulars,
personal, educational and others, in their
online registration form. They want to
correct and rectify those mistakes which
the respondents have refused to allow.
They ask this Court to command the
respondents to permit the petitioners to
rectify mistakes committed while filling
up their online registration forms. All the
petitioners say that these mistakes have
occurred on account of a ''human error'. It
is, therefore, arbitrary not to permit them
to reform those errors. A summary of the
mistakes which each of the seventeen
petitioners
have
committed,
while
uploading their online registration forms
are shown below in tabular form:
Sr.
no.
Writ Petition
Brief
particulars
of
mistake(s)
sought to be
corrected
1.
WRIT - A No. -
4677 of 2020
Qualified
(97/150) - Nonmention
of
physically
handicapped
category.
2.
WRIT - A No. -
4613 of 2020
Qualified
(109/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Graduation
as
1027 in place of
927.
3.
WRIT - A No. -
4872 of 2020
Qualified
-
(108/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Secondary
School
Examination,
Senior
School
Certificate
Examination
and
B.Sc.
as
315, 320 and
905 in place of
63, 64 & 67,
respectively.
4.
WRIT - A No. -
4535 of 2020
Qualified
(99/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
roll number of
B.A. IIIrd Year
as 635857 in
place
635771680 and
also to correct
the
marks
of
B.Ed.
Certificate
as
376/600 in place
of 661/800.
5.
WRIT - A No. -
4540 of 2020
Qualified
(94/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Intermediate
Examination as
373 in place of
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
273.
6.
WRIT - A No. -
4656 of 2020
Qualified
-
(105/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Graduation
as
656 in place of
682.
7.
WRIT - A No. -
4666 of 2020
Qualified
-
(104/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Intermediate as
283/500 in place
of 383/500, roll
number of B.Ed.
as
4058/J
in
place of 14583
and roll number
of U.P. TET as
3517638970 in
place
of
35176338970.
8.
WRIT - A No. -
4700 of 2020
Qualified
-
(106/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
father's name as
Krishnapal
Singh in place
of Munni and
mother's
name
as
Munni
in
place
of
Krishnapal
Singh.
9.
WRIT - A No. -
4731 of 2020
Qualified
-
(104/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
roll number of
High School as
035892 in place
of 835892.
10.
WRIT - A No. -
4742 of 2020
Not
Qualified
according
to
General
Category-
(93/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
category
as
OBC in place of
General.
11.
WRIT - A No. -
4774 of 2020
Qualified
-
(100/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
in
Graduation
as
1901 in place
2551.
12.
WRIT - A No. -
4790 of 2020
Qualified
-
(92/150)
-
Seeking to be
treated in the
category
of
Freedom
Fighters as he
acquired
his
degrees in the
said category.
13.
WRIT - A No. -
4934 of 2020
Qualified
-
(108/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
roll number in
Graduation
as
12313101485 in
place
of
2313101485
and
correction
of
marks
of
B.Ed.
8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
37
(Practical)
as
359 in place of
259.
14.
WRIT - A No. -
4935 of 2020
Qualified
-
(101/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks of B.Ed.
(Theory) as 303
in place of 200
and Total Marks
of
B.Ed.
(Practical)
as
200 in place of
303.
15.
WRIT - A No. -
4938 of 2020
Qualified
-
(94/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Graduation
as
978 in place of
987.
16.
WRIT - A No. -
4827 of 2020
Qualified
-
(92/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks of B.T.C.
as 1475 in place
of 1472.
17.
WRIT - A No. -
4881 of 2020
Qualified
-
(102/150)
-
Seeking
correction
of
marks
of
Graduation
as
2200 in place of
2220.

8. The case of Chitra, the writ
petitioner in Writ - A No.4742 of 2020 is
different from others in that, that she has
not qualified the written examination.
She says that this is on account of the
fact that she has not been able to fill up
the relevant entry in the application form
claiming her OBC status. It is her case
that in the event she is permitted to
reform that mistake, the marks she has
earned in the written examination would
render her qualified in the OBC category.
This is so because the cut-off marks for
qualification of an OBC candidate in the
written examination are lower and she
has crossed that threshold by her earned
score. It may be true that being a nonselected
candidate
in
the
written
examination, this petitioner's candidature
may be remoter than others, but that has
no bearing on the issue involved in this
petition. Like the selected candidates in
the written examination, this petitioner
too asks to reform her mistake in her
application form, uploaded and finally
submitted online. Therefore, no different
issues are required to be examined so far
as Writ - A No.4742 of 2020 is
concerned.

9. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag
Dubey, Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Pankaj
Kumar,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners and S/ Sri Pramod Kumar,
Shantanu Khare, J.S. Pandey, Vishesh
Rajvanshi, J.K. Tripathi, Ashish Pandey,
Harindra Prasad, Seemant Singh, Ramesh
Kumar Shukla, Santosh Kumar Tiwari,
Pankaj Kumar, learned Counsel also
appearing for the petitioners in various
writ petitions, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai & Sri Suresh
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State respondents in all the writ
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitions and S/ Sri Vikram Bahadur
Singh, Arun Kumar, Mohd. Shere Ali,
P.D. Tripathi, A.K. Yadav, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent,
Basic Education Board.

10. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Dubey,
learned Counsel for the petitioner in the
leading writ petition submits that the case
of the petitioner here gives rise to a
slightly different proposition than those
involved in the other writ petitions. It is
pointed out by the learned Counsel that
the petitioner, Ruksar Khan appeared in
the
written
examination
held
on
16.01.2019. The recruitment process is a
long drawn one that passes through nine
stages. These nine stages or steps, as
learned Counsel for the petitioner here
chooses to describe, are these:

"Step
I
-
Notification
of
Vacancies

(Dt. 05.12.2018)

Step II - Registration

Step III - Deposit of Fee

Step IV - Filling of Application
Form

Step V - Issuance of Admit
Card

Step VI - Written Examination
(06.01.2019)

Step VII - Result declared
(12.05.2020) &

146060
candidates
declared
eligible

Step VIII - Filling of form to
prefer the

districts

Step IX - Counseling (final
merit would be

the aggregate of 60% of the
qualifying

marks as well as 40% based on
academic qualification)"

11. This petitioner is said to have
become entitled to claim in the horizontal
category of ''physically handicapped' on
account of low vision that she developed
due to an accident, after she filled up her
registration form on 06.01.2019. She was
issued a disability certificate by the
Medical
Authority
at
Budaun,
on
16.03.2020. The certificate mentions that
this petitioner has 45% permanent
disability (low vision in both eyes). It is
specified in the certificate to be a
condition known as "both eye high
myopia with macular hole left eye". It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that since she developed this
physical handicap after she had filled up
the registration form, she could not
mention or claim under the physically
handicapped category. She has secured
97 marks and qualified the written
examination, the result whereof has been
declared on 12.05.2020. It is pointed out
that the petitioner had become a 45%
permanently
disabled
person
before
filling up her form regarding preference
for the district. Learned Counsel submits
that the respondents are not permitting a
change in the category from General to
Physically Handicapped, because of nonmention at the time of submission of her
online registration form. The respondents
urge, according to the petitioner, the
unqualified prohibition on any change or
amendment to entries in the form once it
is finally submitted/ uploaded.

12. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that this stance would
render the finality clause about entries in
the registration form unreasonable and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
39
Constitution, inasmuch as the desired
change is based on a subsequent event that
entitles the petitioner to a horizontal
reservation category. Learned Counsel
emphasizes that the petitioner's case is
different from others, inasmuch as in all the
other writ petitions, the mistakes, though
cases of sheer human error were about a
state of facts existing and known to each
petitioner at the time when the respective
application forms were filled up. Here, the
state of facts changed pending the
recruitment process. Therefore, according
to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it
would be unreasonable to hold the
petitioner bound by the non-amendability
condition
in
the
advertisement
and
elsewhere. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General on other
hand submits that the condition prohibiting
any change to an entry made in the
application form, once finally submitted
and uploaded, is absolute. It admits of no
exception. According to him, in individual
cases it may cause hardship, but those
cases, like the petitioner claims, would be
rare. The rule is made bearing in mind the
majority or the bulk of cases, where
mistakes in the application forms finally
uploaded
were
well-known
to
the
applicants when they submitted the form
online. He emphasizes that for the rare kind
of case that the petitioner pleads, the rule
does not make allowance. To carve out an
exception for a minuscule minority of cases
about a change necessitated by an event
subsequent, would disturb the entire
recruitment
process.
Mr.
Chaturvedi,
therefore, submits that the case of this
petitioner is in no way different from the
other petitioners. It is to be dealt with on
the same principles.

13. The petitioner's submission
here, to treat her case differently from
others, draws inspiration from a decision
of the Rajasthan High Court in SB Civil
Writ Petition no.4798 of 2012, Bharti
vs. State and others and connected
matters, decided on 13th September,
2012. It was a case where the petitioners
in each of the four writ petitions had
applied for posts of Teachers Grade-II in
the subjects of Mathematics, English,
Science
and
Social
Science.
After
submission of their application forms, the
petitioners lost their husbands. There was
a horizontal reservation provided for
widows. The petitioners desired to claim
that reservation which was denied by the
selecting body or the employers. The
Court held them entitled to claim benefit
of
the
change
on
account
of
a
supervening event, in the following
words:

"The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
petitioners are admittedly widows and such
an unfortunate event is required to be
considered by the respondents while
making
appointment
to
the
posts
concerned. It is asserted that the object to
earmark certain vacancies for widows is
nothing but an effort to rehabilitate and
empower them by providing employment.
The consideration of the petitioners shall be
nothing but satisfaction of the object for
earmarking
the
vacancies.
Learned
counsels to substantiate their contention
placed reliance upon a Single Bench
judgment of this Court in Ms. Jamna
Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
SBCivil
Writ
Petition
No.8899/2012,
decided on 29.8.2012. In the case aforesaid
while
dealing
with
the
similar
circumstances a coordinate Bench of this
Court held as under:-

"It is true that the petitioner
applied
for
consideration
of
her
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidature for recruitment on the post of
Teacher Grade-III (Second Level) under
the General category because on the date
on which she filled up her form her
husband was alive and, later
on,
admission card was issued to her for
appearing in the written-examination
and, in pursuance of that, she appeared in
the written-examination on 02.06.2012.
Unfortunately, her husband died on
18.06.2012, therefore, immediately the
petitioner preferred representation to the
respondents for changing her category
from General to Widow; but, the prayer
of the petitioner was rejected ostensibly
in
view
of
clause
19(1)
of
the
advertisement.

It is not in dispute that the
petitioner applied under the General
category but it is also correct that before
declaration of result her husband died on
18.06.2012 which is a natural calamity.
Therefore, obviously the fact of death of
petitioner's husband was to be considered
by the authorities of the welfare State in
view of the fact that women fall under
the weaker section of the society as per
Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner is only asking for
considering
her
candidature
for
appointment
as
Teacher
Grade-III
(Second Level) under the "Widow"
category as per her merit in the writtenexamination.

In my opinion, the decision has
not
been
taken
by
the
authority
concerned
objectively
because
the
respondents themselves are changing
category at their own for the candidates
belonging to SC/ST/OBC to General
category if they secure marks to compete
as per their merit with General category
and considering those reserve category
candidates under the General category;
meaning
thereby,
the
candidates
belonging to SC/ST/OBC category are
getting benefit of change of category
from reserve class to General if found
meritorious, then, same analogy can be
put into operation for young widows
also.

Further, it is important to take
judicial note of the fact that unlike other
reserve categories the status falling under
the "Widow" category purely rests upon
happening of an event in the course of
life of a woman and no sooner husband
of a woman dies she is rendered widow
for
all
purposes
including
her
consideration for employment purposes
under the widow category and denial
shall rather render the proceedings
vitiated
and
violative
of
the
Constitutional provision. Therefore, the
concerned authority was under obligation
to exercise its power for granting relief to
the petitioner. However, it has not been
done in this case."

In the instant matter too the
petitioners
became
widows
after
submitting the application forms but
before
completion
of
process
of
selection. As such, their case is also
required to be treated in accordance with
the law laid down by this Court in the
case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra)."

14. The petitioner's contention
would surely carry much weight had her
case rested upon specific particulars
about the accident and the precise time
that she acquired the physical disability,
entitling her to a change in status to a
physically handicapped candidate. A
perusal of the writ petition shows that the
assertions are woefully vague about what
kind of accident did befall the petitioner;
the date, place and circumstances of the
accident. It would be apposite in this
connection to refer paragraphs nos.11,
8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
41
12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition, that
carry the relevant averments. These read:

"11. That it is pertinent to
mention here that during the aforesaid
process of examination and before
announcement of its result the petitioner
became a case of low vision due to an
accident and her case was diagnosed by
District Medical Authority of Budaun as
her both eye high myopia with macular
hole left eye. The District Medical
Authority, Budaun has issued Disability
Certificate 16.03.2020 to the petitioner
wherein it has been mentioned that she
has 45% Permanent in relation to her
(both eye) as per guidelines. Copy of the
disability certificate of the petitioner
dated 16.03.20 is being annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE NO.7 to
this writ petition.

12. That it is appropriate to
submit here even though the petitioner
applied in general category while before
announcement of result the petitioner
became a case of low vision due to an
accident and her case was diagnosed by
District Medical Authority of Budaun as
her both eye high myopia with macular
hole left eye resultantly she became 45%
permanent disable as 45% permanent in
relation to her (both eye) as per
guidelines.

13. That the petitioner became
45% permanent disable before the filling
of the application of preference of
districts through online while there was
no option in the system to change her
category from general to reserve category
of physical handicapped so did not
change her category.

14. That the petitioner became
45% permanent disable during the course
of
the
process
of
the
aforesaid
examination."

15. There is also on record a
representation by the petitioner dated
18.05.2020,
addressed
to
the
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Prayagraj
claiming
benefit
of
the
physically handicapped category, based
on the supervening permanent disability.
A perusal of the said representation
shows that there is not as much as a
whisper about the date, place, time or
circumstances of the accident. All that is
said in the representation is expressed in
the
following
words
(in
Hindi
vernacular):

"निवेदि इस प्रकार है नक मैंिे
निक्षक भर्ती चयि प्रनिया में चयि के समय
मैंिे सामान्य श्रेणी में आवेदि नकया था लेनकि
आवेदि करिे के पश्चार्त् कुछ समय बाद मेरी
आँख ों में च ट लग गई। डॉक्टर क नदखािे के
बाद डॉक्टर ों के पैिल िे यह पाया नक मेरी
आँख ों में Permanent नवकलाोंगर्ता आ गई है
ज अब सही िहीों ह सकर्ती र्तथा बदाय ँ मुख्य
नचनकत्सा अनिकारी द्वारा नििााररर्त ब डा िे
मुझे नवकलाोंग घ निर्त कर नदया और 45%
नवकलाोंगर्ता का प्रमाण-पत्र मुझे प्रदाि नकया
गया।"

(Emphasis by Court)

16. This Court finds that in the
absence of the slightest detail or
particulars about the accident that the
petitioner claims to have caused a
supervening permanent disability, she is
not entitled to ask for a change in the
midst of the recruitment process. The
principle enunciated by the Rajasthan
High Court in Bharti vs. State (supra)
would not come to the petitioner's rescue.
The consequence is that the petitioner's
case is to be treated at par and on the
same parameters as the other petitioners,
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who committed a mistake by a wrong
mention or non-mention of a particular
fact or figure in the application form
when they uploaded it, though it was well
within their knowledge at the time.

17. The submission of the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioners is
that omissions or mistakes in the
application forms committed by the
petitioners are the result of what may be
called ''human error'. The petitioners do
not stand to gain by the flawed entries. It
is emphasized by Mr. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel that the application forms
submitted online are to be subjected to
verification by human agency, crosschecking the entries on a comparison
with the original certificates/ degrees/
documents
issued
by
the
Board/
University/
Issuing
Institutions.
According to Mr. Ojha, therefore, the
petitioners cannot stand to gain by
entering some wrong particulars, that is
to his/ their advantage, or if the facet of
advantage be not there, an incorrect
entry, in any case, would be detected
during scrutiny. Learned Counsel further
submits that these aberrations that are the
products of sheer human error come
about in consequence of the ground
realities in the Indian social milieu. Mr.
Ojha says that the hard reality cannot be
ignored that majority of candidates
applying for the posts in question hail
from a rural background. Even if they
come from urban areas, they are not truly
urbane. They are not affluent young men
or women who sit in the comfort of their
homes, to fill up their individual forms
on a privately owned computer facility.
According to him, these application
forms are filled up through public and
common facilities, like cybercafes, where
an indifferent third party - a commercial
computer operator enters handwritten
data relating to scores of candidates into
individual computer generated online
application forms. Cramped spaces and
strained
resources,
in
these
circumstances, are often responsible for
mistakes of the kind, escaping attention
of an anxious candidate peeping over the
operator's shoulder. Illustratively, he
points out that in Writ - A No.4872 of
2020, in the column relating to total
marks secured by the petitioner in his
High
School,
Intermediate
and
Graduation examinations, the percentage
figure of those marks has been entered by
a sheer human error. These are, therefore,
products of mistake, that ought to be
permitted rectification of.

18. Mr. Ojha further submits that
the anxiety of an employer ought to be
about selecting the best possible talent
available,
particularly,
in
public
employment. That consideration ought
not to be lost by excluding a meritorious
candidate for a non-substantial and
inconsequential lapse attributable to
human error. Mr. Ojha has, particularly,
emphasized that cases of an incorrect
entry in the online application form
would be different from cases of an
incorrect entry made in an OMR Sheet.
In case of an OMR Sheet, according to
the learned Senior Counsel, there is no
human agency to recheck the accuracy of
the entries made. The OMR Sheets are
processed and evaluated exclusively by a
computer facility, where an incorrect
entry cannot be corrected. A permission
to rectify and reform, therefore, in the
case of an OMR Sheet, would lead the
entire evaluation to go haywire. Mr.
Ojha, therefore, urges that all those
Authorities that repel a candidate's right
to a change of entries made by him in the
8 All. Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43
OMR Sheet proceed on a different
principle that has no application here.

19. Mr. Seemant Singh, Mr. Anurag
Dubey, Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Mr. Pankaj
Kumar,
Mr.
Pramod
Kumar,
Mr.
Shantanu Khare, Mr. J.S. Pandey, Mr.
Vishesh Rajvanshi, Mr. J.K. Tripathi,
Mr. Ashish Pandey, Mr. Harindra Prasad,
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Shukla and Mr.
Santosh Kumar Tiwari have elaborately
addressed this Court with reference to
facts of the respective causes in which
they appear. Broadly on principle, they
have advanced a submission that a
mistake that is obvious to the eye as a
product of human error, ought to be
permitted reform of. They have also
submitted
that
in
the
absence
of
demonstrable mala fides or fraud, which
is a remote possibility, the candidate
ought not be penalized for a mere human
error. All the learned Counsel have, in
one voice, distinguished these cases from
those where an incorrect entry has been
made in an OMR Sheet.

20. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing
for the State and S/ Sri Vikram Bahadur
Singh, Arun Kumar, Mohd. Shere Ali,
P.D. Tripathi and A.K. Yadav, learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Basic
Education Board, all reiterate their stand
in answer to the petitioners' submission
noticed in the earlier part of this
judgment. They say that once an
application form is finally submitted
online, the agreed conditions do not
permit any change to be made to the
entries there.

21. This Court must record the fact
that Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Additional
Advocate General and the other learned
Counsel representing the Basic Education
Board, have opposed the motion to admit
this petition to hearing. They have urged
that it is a matter that does not require
affidavits to be put in on behalf of the
respondents for the position of law is
clear. They say that the facts in each of
the writ petitions that are almost
common, do not entitle the petitioners to
relief, given the position of law that
governs
rights
of
parties.
Broadly
speaking, there are three kinds of
mistakes that the various petitioners have
committed: the first is the wrong mention
or non-mention of a reservation category;
the second is a correction to the marks
mentioned in one or the other relevant
examinations; and the third is an
incorrect mention of the roll number in
one or the other relevant examinations. It
merits notice that the recruitment process
for the posts of these 69,000 Assistant
Teachers in various schools of the Basic
Education Board commenced with a
Government Order no.2056/68-4-2018,
Shiksha Anubhag-4, dated 01.12.2018,
carrying guiding principles applicable to
the selections. The aforesaid Government
Order
vide
paragraph
no.17,
sub-
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 enumerates the
following instructions for candidates:

"17. ऑि लाइि आवेदि-

(1) x x x x

(2) ऑि लाइि आवेदि करिे के नलए
र्तकिीकी
एवों
पररचालि
सम्बन्धिर्त
निदेि
वेबसाइट पर उपलब्ध कराये जायेंगे। अभ्यनथाय ों
क यह सलाह दी जार्ती है नक वह नििााररर्त
वेबसाइट पर ऑिलाइि आवेदि करिे से प वा
अिुदेि ों क साविािीपुवाक पढ़ लें।

(3) अभ्यनथाय ों क अपिे ऑिलाइि
आवेदि की अोंनकर्त प्रनवनिय ों में सोंि िि का क ई
अवसर देय िहीों ह गा। इसके नलए अनिवाया है नक
अभ्यथी रनजस्ट्रेिि क सबनमट (Submit)/
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
फाइिल सेव (Final save) करिे से प वा उसका
नप्रोंट लेकर, ऑिलाइि अोंनकर्त प्रनवनिय ों का
अनभलेख ों से नमलाि अवश्य कर ले।

(4) अभ्यनथाय ों से रनजस्ट्रेिि क
सबनमट (Submit)/ फाइिल सेव (Final save)
करिे से प वा इस आिय के घ िणा पत्र क चयि
करिा अनिवाया ह गा नक - "मैंिे ऑिलाइि
आवेदि के अोंर्तगार्त नकये गये रनजस्ट्रेिि का नप्रोंट
निकाल कर उसमें की गयी प्रनवनिय ों का नमलाि
म ल अनभलेख ों से कर नलया है एवों उसे सही पाया
है र्तथा मै अपिे रनजस्ट्रेिि क फाइिल सेव करिे
हेर्तु प णार्तः सहमर्त हँ, फाइिल सेव ह िे के
उपरान्त मुझे अपिे आवेदि में सोंि िि करिे का
क ई अवसर देय िहीों ह गा।"

(5) x x x x

(6) अभ्यथी द्वारा ऑिलाइि पोंजीकरण
सबनमट (Submit)/ फाइिल सेव (Final save)
करिे के उपरान्त नकसी ब्यौरे में पररवर्ताि/ सुिार
के नलए अिुर ि क नकसी भी पररन्धथथनर्त में
स्वीकार िहीों नकया जायेगा। नकसी भी कारण से
पुनिकरण पृष्ठ में अभ्यथी द्वारा भरे गए नकसी
त्रुनटप णा ब्यौरे से उत्पन्न नकसी भी पररणाम के नलए
परीक्षा सोंथथा उत्तरदायी िहीों ह गा। अभ्यथी द्वारा
ऑिलाइि भरा गया सोंि निर्त नववरण ही अन्धन्तम
ह गा और भनवष्य में ऑिलाइि क ई बदलाव िहीों
नकया जायेगा।"

22. In Schedule-II appended to the
Government Order dated 01.12.2018, there
are detailed instructions about the manner in
which a candidate is to proceed, step by step
in order to submit his application form
online. Paragraphs nos.1, 2 and, in particular,
paragraph no.7 of the Schedule are relevant.
These are extracted below:

"पररनिि-II

ऑिलाइि आवेदि करिे के नलए
अिुदेि -

सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा के
नलए आवेदि करिे वाले उम्मीदवार से अपेक्षा है:

1. सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा हेर्तु
अभ्यथी द्वारा नववरण ऑिलाइि भरे जाएोंगे और
आवेदि पत्र भरर्ते समय िवीिर्तम रोंगीि फ ट (ज
6 माह की अवनि से अनिक पुरािा ि ह ) हस्ताक्षर
युक्त (केवल जेपीईजी प्रारूप में) का स्कैि
अपल ड नकया जाएगा। अभ्यथी क आवेदि करिे
से पहले अभ्यथी की र्तस्वीर (जेपीईजी प्रारूप)
और हस्ताक्षर स्कैि करके रखिे की सलाह दी
जार्ती है।

2. स चिा बुलेनटि क ध्यािप वाक
पढ़िा और उसमें दी गई सभी अपेक्षाओों से अवगर्त
ह िा।

3. x x x x

4. x x x x

5. x x x x

6. x x x x

7. ऑिलाइि आवेदि पत्र प्रस्तुर्त
करिे की नवनि

> वेबसाइट पर लॉगआि करें।

> "Apply on line" नलोंक पर जाएों
और उसे ख लें।

> आवेदि पत्र ऑिलाइि प्रस्तुर्त करिे
के नलए अिुदेि ों एवों प्रनकया क ध्यािप वाक पढ़ें।
इस पृष्ठ के अोंर्त में ऑिलाइि आवेदि के नलए
निम्ननलन्धखर्त चार नलोंक नदए गए हैं:

(क) ऑिलाइि आवेदि फामा भाग -1
भरें और पोंजीकरण सोंख्या ि ट करें।

(ख) िुल्क का भुगर्ताि निनदाि बैंक के
िवीिर्तम र्तकिीक के माध्यम से करें।

(ग) ऑिलाइि आवेदि फामा भाग- III
में स्कैि फ ट इमेज अपल ड करें।

(घ) पुिीकरण पृष्ठ का नप्रोंट लें और
अपिे पास सुरनक्षर्त रखें।