Akhilesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 400 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17099 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indrapal Singh,Ajay Sharma,Mukesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Shivam Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

The case at hand is similar to the controversy which arose in Writ-A No.1074 of 2022 'Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.'. and which has been decided on 14.03.2022 by a detailed judgment relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments of this Court.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a basic school on 27.01.2021 based on a selection and he received salary for two months. However, his appointment has been cancelled vide order dated 19.06.2021 which is impugned herein. The appointment was cancelled on the ground that incorrect marks have been mentioned in the application form. In this regard, as is evident from the documents on record, especially Annexure nos.6 and 11, the petitioner had obtained 639 out of 1000 marks in theory and 81 out of 100 marks in practical. However, the mentioning of those marks in the marksheet itself was quite confusing as was the case in the case of Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi (supra). The grand total in the marksheet was mentioned as 716/1100 marks and thereafter, below it, the marks in practical were mentioned as 'Final Practice of Teaching' - 81/100. Petitioner could not understand the marks given for theory and practical separately in view of the grand total marks mentioned there, which in fact did not include the marks obtained in practical, though, ordinarily grand total will include all the marks in practical. The petitioner mentioned 639 out of 1000 marks in theory and the remaining 100 marks was treated by him as being the marks for practical examination, out of which, he mentioned his score as 77 marks which was based on the marks given individually in respect of the subjects mentioned therein. When this fact was noticed subsequently then the appointment has been cancelled.

Now, this is a case where the petitioner, in fact, had secured higher marks i.e. 66.29 % but due to the confusing nature of the marks mentioned in the marksheet issued by the University, he mentioned the incorrect marks which were less than what he had secured. Therefore, this is a case where he put himself in a disadvantageous position and not a case where he may have, by incorrectly mentioning the marks, gained some advantage in selection as Assistant Teacher. This was the case in Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi's case (supra). Therefore, the case at hand is squarely covered by the said decision.

It is fruitful to refer to the judgment dated 14.03.2022 passed in Writ-A No.1074 of 2022 'Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' which reads as under:-

"Heard.

The petitioner who was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in a basic school has challenged the order dated 19.06.2021 by which his selection was reviewed and the same was cancelled leading to passing of an order of the same date i.e. 19.06.2021, cancelling his appointment, as also the subsequent order dated 23.11.2021 passed by Secretary, Basic Education Board on the representation of the petitioner in pursuance to judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2021 passed in his writ petition filed earlier.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner applied for such selection and appointment as Assistant Teacher in a basic school in 2019. He was selected and called for counseling. During counseling, it was found that there was some discrepancy in the marks mentioned by him in his application form pertaining to B.Ed degree and those mentioned in his original marksheet. Accordingly, the appointment letter was not issued. On 04.12.2020, a Government Order was issued as there were several candidates who had incorrectly filled-up the form, some of whom had mentioned lesser marks than what they had secured actually just as in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, a procedure was prescribed by the said Government Order for dealing with such cases. Based on the said Government Order dated 04.12.2020 which, in fact, has been taken into consideration by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.1308 of 2020 'Abhinav Kardam vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' where the Apex Court directed the concerned authorities to place the cases of the petitioners therein for consideration in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 and 10.12.2020, the District Level Committee scrutinized cases of all such candidates including the petitioner and opined that the petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment. Accordingly, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2021.

At this stage, it is not out of place to mention as to what was the discrepancy in the marks of the petitioner. Page no.82 of the petition is the marksheet of B.Ed pertaining to the petitioner and according to it, he had secured total marks of 757 out of 1100 in the written examination. In addition to it, he had secured 85 out of 100 in practical. However, on a bare perusal of the marksheet, it is apparent that the marks secured by him in practical examination were referred as 'Final Practice of Teaching' and these marks were mentioned below the grand total. According to petitioner's counsel, this confused the petitioner and accordingly, while filling-up the form, he mentioned the marks obtained in written examination as 585 out of 900 and in the practical examination 172 out of 200. This he did by adding up certain marks which had been given out of 100 in the marksheet. The total marks mentioned was 757 out of 1100 obviously as the marksheet mentioned these marks as the grand total. The petitioner did not realize that marks for the practical examination were separate and in fact, he had secured 85 out of 100 and these 85 marks should have been added by him to 757 marks as he had actually secured 842 marks. But he mentioned only 757 marks as the grand total based on the entry in the marksheet.

Considering the very format of the marksheet, which was quite confusing, the University issued a notice dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure-11) that the written examination comprised of 1100 marks whereas the practical examination was of 100 marks and directed the System Manager, Computer Center to upload the same on the website of the University and a direction was also given to the Deputy Registrar, Public Information to dispose of the matters in the light of the aforesaid.

So, what comes out is that it is not a case where the petitioner had mentioned more marks than he had actually obtained. In fact, he had mentioned 85 marks less than what he had actually obtained because of the aforesaid confusion. Therefore, evidently no advantage was claimed deliberately or otherwise by the petitioner. In fact, he put himself in a disadvantageous position.

This is why in consideration of Government Order dated 04.12.2020, the District Level Committee took a decision to offer appointment to the petitioner.

At this stage, it is not out of place to mention that subsequently another Government Order dated 05.03.2021 was issued which is also on record. The case of the petitioner is that the said Government Order permitted ignoring such discrepancies, if documentary basis of the same could be shown by the candidate. He says that there was documentary basis in the form of the format of the marksheet and the clarification issued by the University itself which was proof enough to show that the format of the marksheet was quite confusing and several such issues had arisen leading to a situation where the University had to direct its officials to upload such clarification and dispose of the grievances accordingly.

However, after issuance of Government Order dated 05.03.2021, the matter of the petitioner was reconsidered along with others and ultimately, in view of the discrepancies already discussed, the petitioner's appointment/ selection was recommended for cancellation by the District Level Committee. Consequent to which, the Basic Education Officer cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. Both these events happened on 19.06.2021 and are impugned before this Court.

The petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.13814 (S/S) of 2021 'Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' wherein the contentions of rival parties were considered and the Single Judge Bench of this Court also noticed the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 08.04.2021 rendered in 'Jyoti Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. & others' Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021 as also another decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 26.06.2021 rendered in 'Rahul Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others' Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).378 of 2021. On a statement being made by learned counsel for the Board that the Secretary of Basic Education Board, Prayagraj would look into the representation of the petitioner, the matter was disposed of on 27.07.2021 with these observations:-

"On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj has submitted that this eventuality may very well be looked into by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, therefore, the petitioner may prefer a representation to such authority taking all pleas and grounds and the directions may be issued, in the interest of justice, for disposal of such representation.

This is a fair proposition, therefore, I hereby dispose of this writ petition finally permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copies of all the relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order, with expedition, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified / computerized copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

It is made clear that this is a case of appointment and the petitioner appears to be a meritorious candidate, therefore, the decision shall be taken by the Competent Authority in view of the directions being issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments.

It has been informed by Sri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner that consequent to the impugned order dated 19.06.2021, the authority concerned has issued recovery order against the petitioner, which has been received by the petitioner Yesterday i.e. 26.07.2021, therefore, he could not bring that order before the Court. He has requested that the recovery order may be kept in abeyance till appropriate decision is taken by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj.

Considering the aforesaid request of Sri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and consenting with the learned counsel for the opposite parties on that point, I hereby direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till the appropriate decision is taken by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj in terms of direction being issued by this Court. While taking appropriate decision in terms of order of this Court, the impugned order dated 19.06.2021 shall be ignored.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 27.7.2021"

However, in pursuance of the aforesaid, on a consideration of the matter, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on 23.11.2021. The Secretary of the Board has referred to various decisions of this Court and also the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jyoti Yadav (supra). However, he has quoted only three lines of the said judgment and has not referred to what has been said by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the body of the judgment which shall be considered hereinafter. It has been opined in the impugned order that the petitioner had mentioned less marks while mentioning the grand total marks obtained by him in the training examination whereas he had mentioned higher marks in the practical examination. It has also been referred that a declaration was made by the petitioner in the application form itself that he had compared the entries in the application form with original documents and had found it to be correct and that he would not be entitled to modify the entries subsequently.

The petitioner worked for about three months and was paid salary before cancellation of his appointment.

It is not a case where at the stage of scrutiny of application or counseling itself, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on account of the discrepancies noticed hereinabove but a case where the discrepancies were noticed, a Government Order dated 04.12.2020 was issued as already referred hereinabove, in the light of which the District Level Committee considered the case of the petitioner along with similarly situated persons as the number of such candidates was very large and after such consideration with due and proper application of mind, the District Level Committee was of the opinion that the petitioner should be offered appointment, obviously because, he had not gained anything by mentioning different marks. It is a case where after having worked for about five months and payment of three months' salary to him, the appointment has been cancelled on the aforesaid ground.

Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the Board has invited the attention of the Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Special Appeal Defective No.716 of 2021 [Richa Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others] arising out of Writ Petition No.7746 of 2021 decided on 27.10.2021. He has also referred to a declaration given by the petitioner in his form as contained at page no.73, according to which, if on inquiry, before or after examination/ selection any detail given by the candidate is found to be false or incorrect then the concerned authority would be entitled to cancel the candidature and also to initiate legal proceedings. If any information is found to be incorrect then the candidate would be entirely responsible for the same. The details as mentioned in the registration form had been compared with the originals and found to be correct and was therefore, agreeable to submitting the same finally. After submission of such form finally he would not have any right to modify the same. Based on this, he contended that the impugned order is not liable to be interfered.

At this stage itself, it needs to be mentioned even at the cost of repetition that the petitioner's candidature was not rejected in terms of the aforesaid declaration at the stage of counseling or even at any stage prior to offering him appointment. In fact, to the contrary, in pursuance to the Government Order dated 04.12.2020, which would, in the facts of the case, supersede such declaration, by the conduct of the opposite parties themselves who issued the said Government Order, the petitioner's case was liable to be considered in the light thereof along with others and the same was in fact considered and then a conscious decision was taken to offer him appointment for obvious reasons which have already been mentioned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another Division Bench decision rendered recently on 08.03.2022 in Special Appeal No.69 of 2022 'Secy. Basic Edu. Board & Ors. vs. Jubeda Bano' wherien the judgment of Richa Tripathi (supra) was also cited and the said Division Bench on a consideration of law on the subject including two Supreme Court's decision, one in the case of Jyoti Yadav (supra) which was also considered in Richa Tripathi (supra) and another subsequent decision in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra), clarified the law as under:-

"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.

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.

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 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."

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."

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.

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 respondent-petitioner neither put herself in disadvantaged position nor in an advantaged position. The percentage of the 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 on-line application form the respondent-petitioner put herself in any advantaged position so as to make her candidature liable for cancellation.

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.

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.

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

However, there will be no order as to costs. "

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Richa Tripathi's case (supra), the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as considered subsequently by another Division Bench judgment in Jubeda Bano's case (supra) have not been taken note of wherein it has been categorically held that on a reading of the Government Order and Circulars applicable it is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantageous position as stated above his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected. But if the candidate had projected an advantageous position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement his candidature will stands cancelled. Based on this, he says that case of the petitioner is fairly covered by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jyoti Yadav's case (supra) as the petitioner had put himself in a disadvantaged position as already mentioned hereinabove by mentioning less marks than what he had actually secured. The fact that more marks had been mentioned in practical examination would be of no consequence as it is the grand total which is considered and that grand total was less than the actual grand total marks obtained.

Both the decisions in Jyoti Yadav (supra) and Rahul Kumar (supra) pertain to same selection and the G.Os. applicable are also same. The Court may refer to the relevant portion of the judgment in Jyoti Yadav's case (supra) wherein the law on the subject at least so far as the selection at hand is concerned have been dealt with:

"13. The stand of the State is that every candidate was obliged to fill up the relevant entries in the application form correctly and specially those pertaining to the marks obtained by the candidates in various examinations with due care and caution. The information given in the application form would reflect in quality points of the candidates and have a direct bearing on the merit list. That would in turn, not only determine the inter se merit but afford guidance to cater to the choices indicated by the candidates. The declaration which was spelt out in the Guidelines and repeated in the Advertisement, had clearly put every candidate to notice that if there be any mistake in the application form, the candidate could not claim any right to have those mistakes rectified.

14. Wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater than what they actually deserved, according to the Communication dated 05.03.2021, their candidature would stand rejected. However, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at a disadvantage as against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made by said Communication. The reason for treating these two categories of candidates differently cannot thus be called irrational.

In the first case, going by the marks or information given in the application form the candidate would secure undue advantage whereas in the latter category of cases the candidate would actually be at a disadvantage or where the variation could not be attributed to them. The candidates in the latter category have been given a respite from the rigor of the declaration. The classification is clear and precise. Those who could possibly walk away with the undue advantage will continue to be governed by the terms of the declaration, while the other category would be given some relief.

15. Having considered all the rival submissions, in our view, the Communication dated 05.03.2021 made a rational distinction and was designed to achieve a purpose of securing fairness while maintaining the integrity of the entire process. If, at every juncture, any mistakes by the candidates were to be addressed and considered at individual level, the entire process of selection may stand delayed and put to prejudice. In order to have definiteness in the matter, certain norms had to be prescribed and prescription of such stipulations cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational. Every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the Guidelines and the Advertisement.

16. Having found the Communication dated 05.03.2021 to be correct, the cases of the petitioners must be held to be governed fully by the rigors of the said Communication.

17. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in these petitions and no opportunity beyond the confines of the Communication dated 05.03.2021 can be afforded to the petitioners to rectify the mistakes committed by them. We, therefore, reject the submissions and dismiss all these petitions."

The Court may also fruitfully refer to the subsequent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra):-

"7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form.

These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above.

8. It must however be stated here that the authorities are not strictly following the intent of the G.0. example, and the Circular. For example, the Office Order dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi, shows cancellation of the candidature of one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4, though the projection of marks by way of mistake by said candidate was to his disadvantage. Logically, said candidate would be entitled to have his candidature considered and reckoned at the disadvantaged level. The record shows that even with such disadvantage, the candidate was entitled to be selected.

9. We have given this illustration only by way of an example. The authorities shall do well to consider every such order issued by them and cause appropriate corrections or modifications in the light of conclusions stated above.

10. With these clarifications, the instant petitions are disposed of.

Pending applications, including miscellaneous application also stand disposed of."

In Jyoti Yadav's case (supra), the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 has also been considered and the law in this regard has been categorically clarified as is mentioned in para nos.14 and 15 of the said decision quoted hereinabove. It has been categorically held that wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater than what they actually deserve, according to the communication dated 05.03.2021, their candidature would stand rejected. However, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at the disadvantage as against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made by said communication, the reason for these two categories of candidates differently cannot thus be called irrational. From the facts as discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that the petitioner herein falls in the category of those candidates who had actually put themselves at a disadvantaged position and therefore, even as per Jyoti Yadav's case (supra), the case of the petitioner is covered for grant of relief as observed therein.

The decision rendered in Rahul Kumar's case (supra) has not been considered by Division Bench judgment in Richa Tripathi's case (supra) whereas the same has been considered by another Division Bench in Jubeda Bano's case (supra) as already discussed and quoted hereinabove.

Most importantly, an affidavit was sought from the petitioner at the time of offering appointment to him which was submitted on 09.12.2020, a copy of which is annexed at page no.109, according to which, he had given an undertaking that he would abide by the disadvantageous position in which he had put himself and would not claim any advantage of the higher marks which he had actually obtained so that merit of the candidates inter se at the selection is not disturbed. Therefore, by offering appointment to the petitioner and by interfering with the impugned order, inter se merits of the candidate does not at all get affected in view of the undertaking already given by the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order for the reasons given therein cannot be sustained on facts and in law, therefore, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be restored in service in pursuance to the appointment letter dated 27.01.2021 with continuity in service. The petitioner shall be entitled to salary for the period actually worked but the entire period as above shall be treated as in service.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. "

For the reasons already given in the above quoted judgment and the facts noticed hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed.

The petitioner shall be restored in service in pursuance to the appointment letter dated 27.01.2021 with continuity in service. The petitioner shall be entitled to salary for the period actually worked but the entire period as above shall be treated as in service.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 4.4.2022

Shanu/-