# Secy. Basic Edu. Board, Prayagraj & Ors v. Jubeda Bano

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 749
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-08
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 69 of 2022
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/secy-basic-edu-board-prayagraj-ors-v-jubeda-bano-48235
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 226 - UP Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, Rule 14(3) : -
Appointment
-
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment Examination - Rejection of
Candidature - on the ground that no
candidate should be permitted to rectify
any
mistake
committed
in
On-line
application
form
-
Error
in
online
application form relating to total marks in
high school examination - writ petition -
direction issued to consider the claim of
applicant - Error attributable to absence of
any clear guidelines for indicating marks
in
the
educational
qualification
examination
where
marks-sheets
are
issued indicating therein grades based on
C.G.P.A. system - Petitioner did not put
herself in any advantaged situation -
Order rejecting candidature rightly set
aside - thus appeal liable to be dismissed.
(Para - 21, 28, 29)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

3 All. Secy. Basic Edu. Board, Prayagraj & Ors. Vs. Jubeda Bano
749

20.

Keeping
in
view
the
authoritative enunciation of law, as referred
to above, the present appeal, challenging
the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing appellant's
writ petition on the ground of delay and
laches, deserves to be dismissed.

21. Besides this, it is a disputed
question of fact as to whether the appellant
had worked for the period for which he is
claiming the salary. The aforesaid factual
aspect cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction.

22. For the reasons mentioned
above, we do not find any reason to
interfere in the present appeal. The appeal
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A749
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 69 of 2022

Secy. Basic Edu. Board, Prayagraj & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Jubeda Bano ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Piyush Mishra

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 226 - UP Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, Rule 14(3) : -
Appointment
-
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment Examination - Rejection of
Candidature - on the ground that no
candidate should be permitted to rectify
any
mistake
committed
in
On-line
application
form
-
Error
in
online
application form relating to total marks in
high school examination - writ petition -
direction issued to consider the claim of
applicant - Error attributable to absence of
any clear guidelines for indicating marks
in
the
educational
qualification
examination
where
marks-sheets
are
issued indicating therein grades based on
C.G.P.A. system - Petitioner did not put
herself in any advantaged situation -
Order rejecting candidature rightly set
aside - thus appeal liable to be dismissed.
(Para - 21, 28, 29)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Richa Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Special
Appeal (D) No. 716/2021, Decided on Dt.
27.10.2021),

2. Jyoti Yadav & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 322/2021 Decided on Dt.
08.04.2021),

3. Rahul Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 378/2021 Decided on Dt.
29.06.2021)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Updhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.)

(Order
on
application
for
Condonation of Delay)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant-State authorities and learned
counsel representing the respondent.

2. Having regard to the averments
made in the affidavit filed in support of the
application seeking condonation of delay,
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
we find that the delay has sufficiently been
explained.

3. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and the delay in preferring the
special is hereby condoned.

(Order on Special Appeal)

4. Heard Shri Ran Vijay Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the appellants-State authorities and
Mohd. Ali and Shri Piyush Mishra for the
sole respondent. We have also perused the
record available before us on this special
appeal.

5. This special appeal filed under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court impeaches the judgment and order
dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed
by the respondent-petitioner, namely, Writ
Petition No.17495 (S/S) of 2021 was
allowed. Learned Single Judge quashing
the order dated 14.07.2021 which was
under challenge therein and simultaneously
issued a direction to the appellant-State
authorities to consider the candidature of
the respondent-petitioner for appointment
on the post of Assistant Teacher in primary
school run by U.P. Basic Education Board
by passing an appropriate order within
three weeks.

6. At this juncture, we may note that
by means of the order dated 14.07.2021
which has been quashed by the learned
Single Judge by means of the judgment and
order under appeal herein, the claim of the
respondent-petitioner
for
appointment
against the post of Assistant Teacher was
rejected and accordingly the representation
made by her in that regard was also
rejected.

7. Submission on behalf of the
appellants-State authorities is that the
learned Single Judge while passing the
judgment and order under appeal has erred
in
law
inasmuch
as
the
provisions
contained in the Government Order dated
05.03.2021, the Government Order dated
04.12.2020 and the guidelines issued by
means of the Government Order dated
01.12.2018
for
considering
the
candidature/appointment
of
candidates
against the post of Assistant Teacher have
completely been ignored. It has been stated
that
the
said
guidelines
and
the
Government Orders clearly provide that no
candidate would be given any opportunity
to rectify the mistake which may have crept
in the on-line application form. It has also
been argued that in such a situation the
only option left with the authorities was to
cancel the candidature of the respondentpetitioner.

8. Learned State Counsel has relied
upon
a
judgment
dated
27.10.2021
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal (D) No.716 of
2021, Richa Tripathi vs. State of U.P.
and others, and it has, thus, been argued
that in the said case of Richa Tripathi
(supra)
the
candidate
had
furnished
separate marks claiming that against the
letter "T" and "P" it should be taken as
"Total" and" Practical" and the same cannot
be termed as "Theory" and "Practical" as in
the column the only information sought
was
total
marks.
Referring
to
the
Government Order dated 05.03.2021 the
Division Bench in the said case of Richa
Tripathi (supra) has observed that the said
Government Order provided that in case
any discrepancy is found in on-line
application the candidature is liable to be
rejected. The judgment and order in the
case of Rich Tripathi (supra) further
3 All. Secy. Basic Edu. Board, Prayagraj & Ors. Vs. Jubeda Bano
751
refers to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav and
another vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021,
whereby a bunch of Writ Petitions were
dismissed by means of the order dated
08.04.2021
and
the
validity
of
the
Government Order dated 05.03.2021 was
upheld. Learned State Counsel has thus,
submitted that the learned Single Judge
while passing the judgment under appeal
has not appreciated that the validity of the
Government
Order
dated
05.03.2021
having been upheld, it will have its
application in full strength in the present
case as well and accordingly no illegality
was committed by the State authorities by
rejecting the candidature of the respondentpetitioner
and
by
not
offering
her
appointment for the reason that certain
disclosures made by her in her on-line
application
form
suffered
from
discrepancies. In the aforesaid view, the
submission on behalf of the appellantsState authorities is that the instant special
appeal is liable to be allowed and the
judgment and order under appeal ought to
be set aside.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel
representing the respondent-petitioner has
argued that so far as the validity of the
Government Order dated 05.03.2021 is
concerned, there can not be any dispute,
however, the said Government Order will
have no application in the facts situation of
the present case as on account of the error
relating to total marks in her high school
examination conducted by Central Board of
Secondary Education (hereinafter referred
to as "C.B.S.E"), the respondent-petitioner
did not put her in any advantageous
position.
Referring
to
the
judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rahul Kumar vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & others, Writ Petition(s)
(Civil) No(s).378 of 2021 decided by
means of the judgment and order dated
29.06.2021, it has been argued that the
Government
Order
dated
05.03.2021
envisages cancellation of candidature of a
candidate who puts himself/herself in an
advantaged position if certain error crept in
the on-line application form.

10. We have given our anxious
consideration to the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel representing the
respective parties.

11. So far as the facts of the present
case are concerned, there is no dispute
amongst the parties. It is only the question
of applicability of the Government Orders
dated 05.03.2021 and 04.12.2020 to the
facts of the present case which is a bone of
contention. However, for appropriately
adjudicating the controversy and issues
involved in this case, we may briefly refer
to the facts of the case.

12. The State Government with a
view to make appointment against 69,000
vacancies of Assistant Teachers in the
Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic
Education Board, Prayagraj, issued a
Government Order on 01.12.2018. The said
Government
Order
contains
certain
guidelines. According to the scheme of
recruitment prevalent in the State of U.P.
against the post of Assistant Teacher in the
Primary Schools, the eligible candidates are
required to fill up their on-line form
disclosing their marks obtained in their
High School, Intermediate, Graduation and
other educational qualification. Based on
the marks obtained by such candidates in
terms of the provisions contained in the
Appendix
appended
to
U.P.
Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981,
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quality point marks of all the candidates are
computed and based on such quality point
marks
the
appointments
are
offered
depending on the availability of number of
vacancies. The Appendix of the aforesaid
Service Rules, 1981 is referable to Rule 14
(3) of the Rules, according to which for the
purposes of calculating the quality point
marks for selection of a candidate,
percentage of marks obtained by the
candidates
in
his/her
High
School,
Intermediate,
Graduation
Degree
and
Bachelor of Education/B.Ed etc. are to be
divided by 10 and then they are added.
Thus, the formula for computing the quality
point marks can be found in the statutory
rules according to which percentage of
marks obtained by the candidate in each
examination is to be divided by 10 and then
same are added. Apart from the quality
point marks obtained by the candidate in
terms of the Appendix appended to the
service rules, the marks obtained by a
candidate in written examination, which is
known as Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination, are also taken into account
for the purposes of preparing the final merit
list. Based on such merit, appointments are
offered and process of recruitment is thus
concluded.

13. In the instant case, the petitioner
being fully eligible in terms of the
requirement as per Service Rules as also in
terms of the Government Order dated
01.12.2018
made
on-line
application
seeking appointment against the post of
Assistant
Teacher.
The
respondentpetitioner also appeared in the written
examination held on 06.01.2019. The
petitioner secured 91 marks in this written
examination and based on her total marks
which were computed by taking into
account the quality point marks and the
marks of the written examination, the
respondent-petitioner stood selected for the
post in question when the result was
declared and her name was mentioned at
serial
no.35676.
Accordingly,
the
respondent-petitioner
was
allocated
Maharajganj District.

14. The quality point marks calculated
in terms of the marks obtained by the
petitioner in her educational qualification
examinations were 68.32%. However,
when she appeared for councelling which
was held on 04.12.2020 she was denied
appointment. Such an action on the part of
the appellants-State authorities impelled the
petitioner to file Writ Petition No.3723
(S/S) of 2021 before this Court. The Court
considering the case of the rival parties,
finally decided the aforesaid writ petition
by means of the order dated 09.02.2021
with the liberty to the respondent-petitioner
to file an application before the Secretary,
District Education Board, Prayagraj, who
was directed to consider and pass reasoned
and speaking order in accordance with the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020. The
Court while delivering the said judgment
dated 09.02.2021 extensively quoted the
relevant portion of the Government Order
dated 04.12.2020 and accordingly clearly
directed the Secretary, Basic Education
Board, Prayagraj to consider the claim of
the petitioner in the light of what has been
provided in the said Government Order.

15. However, the representation made
by the respondent-petitioner pursuant to the
said order passed by the Court on
09.02.2021 was rejected by means of the
order dated 14.07.2021 which was passed
by the Secretary, Basic Education Board. It
is this order dated 14.07.2021 that became
the subject matter of challenge before the
learned Single Judge who while passing the
judgment and order under appeal herein
3 All. Secy. Basic Edu. Board, Prayagraj & Ors. Vs. Jubeda Bano
753
allowed the writ petition and quashed the
order dated 14.07.2021 with a further
direction to the Secretary, Basic Education
Board,
Prayagraj
to
consider
the
candidature of the petitioner-respondent for
appointment on the post in question.

16. Before considering the reasoning
given by the learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition, we may advert to
three documents on which great emphasis
has been laid by the learned State Counsel
while arguing the instant special appeal.
The first document referred by the learned
State Counsel is the Government Order
dated 01.12.2020 whereby the directions
were issued to initiate the process of
recruitment against 69,000/- vacancies of
Assistant Teachers. Along with the said
Government Order, detailed guidelines
have been enclosed. According to clause
17(3) of the said guidelines, the candidates
were not to be provided any opportunity to
rectify
the
mistake
in
their
on-line
application form and accordingly it is
provided therein that the candidate should
compare the entries made by them in the
application
form
with
the
original
documents before finally submitting/finally
saving the same. Sub clause 4 of clause 17
of the said guidelines also provides that
immediately
before
finally
submitting/finally
saving
on-line
application, the candidate has to make a
declaration that he/she has taken out print
out of the entries made in the application
form and has also compared the same with
the entries in the original documents and
further that the candidate consents that
once the application form is finally saved,
he/she will have no opportunity to make
any rectification in the application form.
Learned State Counsel has also referred to
sub clause 6 of clause 17 of the said
guidelines, according to which no request
for making any rectification in the
application form shall be entertained after
the
application
form
is
finally
submitted/finally saved on-line. It also
provides that examination conducting body
will not be responsible for any such
mistake in the form.

17. The Government Order dated
04.12.2020 has also been referred to by
the learned State Counsel. Referring to sub
clause 3 point no.2, it has been submitted
on
behalf
of
the
appellants-State
authorities that in case any candidate has
furnished wrong information about the
marks in his/her educational qualification,
the same would lead to change in the merit
of the candidate which will ultimately lead
to alteration in the final select list and
accordingly in the light of this it will not
be justified to permit any change in the
select list/merit list and accordingly in a
case where a candidate fails to give correct
disclosure of marks, he/she shall make
himself/herself liable for cancellation of
his/her candidature. Reference has also
been made to the Government Order dated
05.03.2021. Learned State Counsel has
referred to sub clause 1 of clause 2 of the
said Government Order and has stated that
it provides that in case any candidate gives
incorrect information about the marks
obtained/total marks in the education
qualification
examinations
his/her
candidature shall be cancelled. Based on
the
aforesaid
guidelines/Government
Orders, it has thus, been argued by the
learned State Counsel that on account of
error relating to total marks and marks
obtained by the respondent-petitioner in
her
high
school
examination
her
candidature was liable to be cancelled and
accordingly her candidate has rightly been
rejected and she has rightly been denied
appointment.
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. We will now weigh the
submissions made by the learned State
Counsel. As observed above, so far as the
facts of this case are concerned, there is no
dispute between the parties. The error
which had crept in the application form of
the respondent-petitioner is to the effect
that in her on-line application form in
column relating to educational qualification
against the high school examination she
indicated 600 as total marks and 536 as the
marks obtained by her, whereas in fact the
total marks in her high school examination
conducted by C.B.S.E. were 500 and the
marks obtained by her were 446.5. Thus,
the allegation is that in stead of indicating
446.5/500 as her marks in her high school
examination she indicated 536/600. The
State Counsel has thus submitted that
because of this error/mistake in the marks
in her high school examination as furnished
by her in the application form, the
respondent-petitioner committed a mistake
and according to the Government Orders
dated 05.03.2021, 04.12.2020 and the
guidelines
issued
along
with
the
Government Order dated 01.12.2018 her
candidature has rightly been rejected.

19. The case set up by the respondentpetitioner is that she had passed her high
school examination conducted by Central
Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter
referred to as 'C.B.S.E.') where the markssheet does not disclose either marks
obtained or the total marks in numerals;
rather the marks-sheet discloses grades
based on the system known as CGPA
(Cumulative Grade Point Average). It is the
case of the respondent-petitioner that she
converted the grade awarded to her by the
C.B.S.E. in her high school examination
into percentage of the marks which is
89.3%, however, instead of indicating the
marks obtained by her out of total marks of
500 she indicated her marks out of total
marks 600 and the said error had crept in
the application form for the reason that the
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education U.P. awards marks to the high
school examinees out of total marks of 600,
whereas C.B.S.E. awards the marks to its
candidate out of total marks of 500. It is
also the case of the respondent-petitioner
that the high school marks-sheet issued by
the
C.B.S.E.
neither
contains
any
description of the total marks nor does it
contain any description about the marks
obtained by the candidate in numerals. Our
attention has been drawn to point no.13
contained in the Government Order dated
04.12.2020 according to which it was
decided by the appellants-State authorities
that where quality point marks are to be
calculated on the basis of CGPA, the same
shall
be
done
in
terms
of
the
formula/guidelines
issued
by
the
Board/University concerned. Calculation of
quality point marks of a candidate is to be
done by the State authorities in terms of the
said provision contained in point no.13 of
the Government Order dated 04.12.2020.

20. We have carefully perused the
guidelines contained in the Government
Orders dated 01.12.2018, 04.12.2020 and
the Government Order dated 05.03.2021,
however, we do not find any clarity as to
how details of the marks obtained and the
total marks by a candidate in case he/she
passed his/her high school examination
from a Board or University where markssheet are issued on the basis of CGPA
system, are to be disclosed while filling the
application form on-line.

21. Admittedly, the petitioner passed
her high school examination conducted by
C.B.S.E. where marks-sheet indicates only
the grade based on C.G.P.A. system. Thus
3 All. Secy. Basic Edu. Board, Prayagraj & Ors. Vs. Jubeda Bano
755
the respondent-petitioner calculated the
percentage of marks in terms of the formula
evolved by the C.B.S.E. and found to have
secured 89.3%. There is no dispute by the
appellants-State
authorities
that
the
respondent-petitioner in her high school
examination had secured 89.3% marks. It is
only that instead of writing 446.3/500 she
indicated 536/600 in her application form
against the column of marks obtained/total
marks in High School. The details thus
furnished by the respondent-petitioner in
respect of the high school examination in
her on-line application form does not in any
manner have any impact on calculation of
quality point marks which may disturb her
merit which is based on quality point marks
and the written examination. As indicated
above, in terms of the appendix appended
to the Service Rules, the quality point
marks are to be calculated based on the
percentage of the marks obtained in each
educational
qualification
examination
which is divided by 10. The percentage of
marks in this case obtained by the
respondent-petitioner is not being disputed
which is 89.3%. Thus, from these facts, it is
apparent and explicit that by indicating
536/600
in
place
of
446.3/500
the
respondent-petitioner did not make any
attempt to put herself in any advantaged
situation. The manner in which she
furnished these details may be attributed to
absence of any clear guidelines for
indicating
marks
in
the
educational
qualification examination where markssheets are issued indicating therein grades
based on C.G.P.A. system.

22. In our opinion, when we examine
the Government Orders dated 05.03.2021
and 04.12.2020 what we find is that the
said Government Orders have been issued
with a purpose. The purpose, in our view, is
that no candidate should be permitted to
rectify any mistake committed by him/her
while filling up online application form so
as to avoid have ultimate impact on smooth
conduct of the selection process and to
avoid any alternation or change in the inter
se merit of the candidates which would lead
to any alternation/change in the final
merit/select list. If a candidate furnishes
some
information
in
his/her
online
application form which, as is a present
case, does not put him/her in any
advantaged situation, in our considered
opinion, such effors are not liable to be
treated as the basis for rejecting the
candidature of such a candidate.

23. In a case where a candidate
indicates more marks than he/she has
actually
obtained,
he/she
puts
himself/herself in an advantaged position.
Similarly in a case where a candidate
indicates less marks then total marks
prescribed in an examination conducted by
the Examining Body then in this situation
as well the candidate puts himself/herself in
an advantaged position. In both these
situations, if the application form contains
such mistake, it will not only impede the
smooth selection process but such mistake
will have the potential of altering or
changing the inter se merit of the
candidates
as
also
the
entire
final
merit/select list.

24. In our opinion, the guidelines
issued by means of the Government Order
dated 01.12.2018 and the provisions
contained in the Government Orders dated
05.03.2021 and 04.12.2020 are meant to
check and prevent any such situation where
the selection process gets impeded or such
mistake has the potential of altering inter-se
merit of the candidate as also the final
list/select list. The judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rahul Kumar (supra) is very relevant to
be referred to at this juncture itself. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said case of Rahul
Kumar (supra) has clearly considered
point no.2 of the Government Order dated
04.12.2020. The reference of the said
Government Order has been made in para 3
of the said judgment which is extracted
herein below:

"
Government
Order
dated
04.12.2020 (the G.O., for short) dealt with
as many as 21 points of discrepancies
which could possibly have crept in while
filling up online application forms by the
candidates. Point No.2 of said G.O. is of
some relevance and is being quoted
hereunder for facility.

Point No.2: Discrepancy in the
Marks obtained and Total marks of High
School,
Intermediate,
Graduation,
Training and to the total marks and marks
obtained received from the excel sheet of
the candidate. In relation to the above type
of discrepancies following action to be
taken has been decided."

25. Their Lordships of Hon'ble
Supreme Court have clearly interpreted the
said provision contained in point no.2 of
the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 in
para 7 of the said judgment which is also
extracted hereunder;

"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
oposition 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
ensure 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."

26. From the aforequoted portion of
the judgment in the case of Rahul Kumar
(supra) rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is abundantly manifest that rigor
of the Government Order is clear according
to which whenever any undue advantage
ensues to the candidate on account of the
discrepancy committed by him/her while
filling up online application form, then the
candidature of such a candidate must be
cancelled. However, if by the discrepancy
committed
while
filling
up
online
application form the candidate concerned
puts herself in a disadvantaged situation
his/her candidature need not be cancelled
but such a candidature will be reckoned
with such disadvantage as projected in the
application form.

27. In the present case, the facts as
discussed above, which are not in dispute,
clearly establish that on account of error
while indicating the high school marks in
her
online
application
form
due
to
inadvertent
mistake,
the
respondentpetitioner
neither
put
herself
in
disadvantaged
position
nor
in
an
advantaged position. The percentage of the
3 All. State of U.P. Vs. Manager C/M Islamia Inter College & Ors.
757
marks of the respondent-petitioner in her
high school examination is 89.3% and it is
this percentage which was taken into
account by the appellants-State authorities
while reckoning the quality point marks. In
such a situation it cannot be said by any
stretch of imagination that by mistakenly
indicating the High School marks in her online application form the respondentpetitioner put herself in any advantaged
position so as to make her candidature
liable for cancellation.

28. We have already observed that the
Government Orders dated 05.03.2021 and
04.12.2020 as also the guidelines contained
in the Government Order dated 01.12.2018
are to be given effect to. However, any
mindless application of the provisions
contained in the said Government Orders
has the potential of denying rightful claim
of a deserving candidate who not only
qualified in the written examination but
also was ultimately selected in the final
select list. The validity of the Government
Order dated 05.03.2021 has already been
upheld by this Court in the case of Jyoti
Yadav and another (supra) but so far as
its application is concerned, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rahul
Kumar (supra) has made it absolute clear
that the candidature of a candidate is liable
to be cancelled only in case such a
candidate
puts
himself/herself
in
an
advantaged position by committing some
mistake while submitting the on-line
application form.

29. In the light of the discussions
made and for the reasons given above, this
Court finds itself in agreement with the
conclusion drawn by the learned Single
Judge and hence any interference in the
judgement and order under appeal herein
will be unwarranted.

30. The Special Appeal, thus, lacks
merit which is hereby dismissed.

31. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2022)03ILR A757
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 185 of 2020
with
Special Appeal No. 340 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Manager C/M Islamia Inter College & Ors.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Dwijendra Mishra, Mohammad Danish,
Mohd. Mansoor

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
226,
30(1)
-
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Sections 16-F F, 16FF (3) (b) & 16-FF (4) - Committee of
Management of a minority Institution - issued
an
advertisement
inviting
applications
for
making appointments on post of Assistant
Teacher in four subject Mathematics, General,
Hindi and Art - Respondent no. 2 & 3 whom are
graduate in History and Political Science and
with Mathematics as a subject respectively -
both of them applied - & get selected finally
amongst the candidates for the post of Assistant
Teacher (General) and (Math) respectively in
interview held - C/M published a merit list &
sent for approval before DIOS - being receiving
complaints toward said selection, DIOS refused