JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition raises a challenge to the order dated 12.2.2007 terminating the services of the petitioner as Hostel Attendant/Maid Servant. 2. The petitioner Bela Devi was appointed as a Class IV employee on 24th of December 1986 on the said post in the I.T. Girls Hostel of the respondent Banaras Hindu University. Her contention is that she through an affidavit dated 1.1.1987 disclosed here date of birth as 10th June, 1962 and since she was not educationally qualified there was no document to support the said disclosure. From a perusal of the document which has been filed as Annexure-1 it appears that she had worked for a short period between 24.12.1986 to 30.6.1987 and a further sanction was granted from 1st July 1987 to 31st July, 1987. This was extended from 1st January, 1988 to 30th June, 1988. The next engagement came on 24th March, 1990 and Condition No. 1 indicated that the same was for a period of six months or till further notice whichever is earlier. She was declared to be medically fit in a medical examination conducted by the University. 3. Subsequently, the University took a decision to treat the appointment of the petitioner on probation with effect from 30th March, 1990 under the Memorandum dated 3/6/-8-1991. This was followed by a confirmation order dated 18th November, 1992 which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition which recites that the date of birth has been accepted and recorded as 10th June, 1962. 4. The petitioner continued in employment for twelve years thereafter when she received an information that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and therefore in contemplation thereof she was being placed under suspension. The suspension order dated 30th September, 2004 has been brought on record. A Memorandum was issued to her on 30th October, 2004 calling upon her to show-cause as to why her services be not dispensed with on the charge that she had obtained the employment on the basis of a forged Transfer Certificate from an Institution disclosing that she had passed Class VIIIth and on verification it was found that she was not even a student of the said School. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same. The reply submitted by the petitioner dated 9th November, 2004 recites that she had not submitted any such certificate as alleged in the show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same. The reply submitted by the petitioner dated 9th November, 2004 recites that she had not submitted any such certificate as alleged in the show-cause notice. The petitioner was apprised of the charge, given an opportunity and the evidence sought to be relied upon against her was disclosed. She has submitted a reply whereafter an enquiry proceeded and the suspension order was revoked but ultimately she was removed from service by the impugned order dated 12th February, 2007 holding that she had furnished a false information and obtained employment on the basis of a fake certificate disclosing her qualification as Class VIIIth pass. 5. This writ petition was filed questioning the correctness of the said impugned order on the ground that the facts as placed by the petitioner have not been correctly appreciated and that the petitioner had only submitted an affidavit disclosing her date of birth without there being any element of false declaration of having passed eighth class. It is also submitted that the action of the respondent University is discriminatory inasmuch as in similar circumstances one Jay Shankar was also found to have been guilty but he was awarded a lesser punishment on stoppage of five increments without removing him from service. 6. The University has filed a counter-affidavit and the stand taken is that the petitioner was engaged on a stop gap basis in the year 1986 as a daily wager whereafter the University decided to make regular appointments after drawing a panel from amongst the then existing daily wagers. Accordingly, the post of Hostel Attendant was advertised on 8th October, 1989 and the advertisement clearly stipulates that the minimum educational qualification would be class VIII pass. The said advertisement is Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit which clearly specified the minimum educational qualification for the post of Hostel Attendant as Junior High School or equivalent. It may be clarified that Junior High School is equivalent to Class VIII. The records of the University indicate that the application form which was filed by the petitioner was in response to the said advertisement alongwith a postal order and in the column of educational qualifications it was categorically stated that the petitioner did not have any educational qualification. It may be clarified that Junior High School is equivalent to Class VIII. The records of the University indicate that the application form which was filed by the petitioner was in response to the said advertisement alongwith a postal order and in the column of educational qualifications it was categorically stated that the petitioner did not have any educational qualification. The University has taken a stand that the petitioner in the same application form has endorsed a date of birth certificate at item No. 3 for which she had submitted the Transfer Certificate from Khojwan Rashtriya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khojwan Bazar, Varanasi. The said transfer certificate has been filed which indicates the date of birth as 10th June, 1962 and that the petitioner has passed her Class VIIIth from the said Institution. 7. The University contends that a large number of such appointments on the basis of fake certificates came to the notice of the University whereafter it was decided to hold an enquiry in all such matters and accordingly the case of the petitioner was also enquired into. In order to secure information about the correctness or otherwise of the said certificate an enquiry was made from the Institution, which is a Government Institution, and the Principal of the said Institution sent a reply on 5th July, 2004 to the effect that the petitioner was never enrolled as a student of the said Institution. Relying on the said verification letter the petitioner was duly informed of the same whereafter the University has passed the order after complying with the due procedure of enquiry. 8. I have heard Smt. Manju R. Chauhan counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Prakash for the respondent University. The affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and therefore the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage under the rules of the Court with the consent of the parties. 9. From a perusal of the facts as brought on record and pleaded, it is clear that the advertisement which was made on 6th October, 1989 was for engaging the internal candidates who were working on daily wages on probation against substantive vacancies. The said advertisement therefore specified the qualification of Class VIIIth pass. The petitioner knowingly applied against the said post and also filled up the application form alongwith a postal order which has been referred to in the application form itself. The said advertisement therefore specified the qualification of Class VIIIth pass. The petitioner knowingly applied against the said post and also filled up the application form alongwith a postal order which has been referred to in the application form itself. The contention of the petitioner, that the said form was filled up clearly indicating that the petitioner had no educational qualifications, justifying the fact that she had filed an affidavit about her date of birth and that she had not filed the Transfer Certificate of the Institution for the purpose of her date of birth, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the advertisement required a certificate of having passed Class VIII. The column in the application form does indicate that the petitioner had no educational qualification. 10. Either way the petitioner cannot succeed inasmuch as if the contents of the application form are to be believed, then too even the petitioner did not have the minimum eligibility of the educational qualification prescribed. She admits that she has not passed Class VIIIth. For this reason, even if it is believed that the petitioner had not submitted the certificate, yet on her own showing she is ineligible. 11. On the other hand, there is a strong reason to believe that the petitioner in order to secure employment in view of the educational qualification prescribed did submit the said transfer certificate indicating her qualification. However, the said certificate was described as a date of birth certificate in the same application form. The theory of the petitioner that she had submitted an affidavit disclosing her date of birth is therefore of no relevance inasmuch as the said transfer certificate served the twin purpose of her date of birth and also of the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. The authorities therefore appear to have in a way, either deliberately processed the application of the petitioner for appointment, or may have done this due to oversight, which is not known. When the application form of the petitioner clearly stated that she had no educational qualification then there was no occasion for the University to have entertained the candidature of the candidate at all. 12. This presumption however, does not help the petitioner inasmuch as she has gained employment and therefore the presumption is that she had filed the said transfer certificate with a view to set up her educational qualifications. 12. This presumption however, does not help the petitioner inasmuch as she has gained employment and therefore the presumption is that she had filed the said transfer certificate with a view to set up her educational qualifications. It is not the case of the petitioner that the University has planted the said certificate nor are there any pleadings of such mala fides against any Officer or employee of the University to that effect. 13. In such circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner took aid of the said certificate indicating her qualification as Class VIII pass under the garb of a certificate for her date of birth. The filing of the affidavit or otherwise loses its significance in view of the aforesaid inference for which there is a strong logical basis. The petitioner therefore is a victim of her own success and she has allowed herself to be trapped in the net which was spread by her. 14. The aforesaid conclusion drawn therefore does not impel this Court to interfere with the findings recorded on the said issue by the University and the punishment imposed. A defect of basic ineligibility is neither curable and in the circumstances of this case is not even pardonable. It is only an irregularity which can be in subsequently cured which is not the case here. An ineligible person cannot claim continuance on a post as a matter of right and for want of minimum educational qualification. There is no law permitting regularizing the same. The Court is supported in its view by the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd Sartaj and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 1 UPLBEC 719. 15. Coming to the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Manju R. Chauhan contends that the University has the power of relaxation and as a matter of fact in disciplinary proceedings against others who were similarly situated the University has taken a lenient view. Not only this Smt. Chauhan relies on a Judgment of this Court dated 6th November, 2009 where in a matter relating to the same University itself on an identical charge, this Court directed the University to make a fresh review and reconsider the matter keeping in view the similarity of facts in such cases. 16. Not only this Smt. Chauhan relies on a Judgment of this Court dated 6th November, 2009 where in a matter relating to the same University itself on an identical charge, this Court directed the University to make a fresh review and reconsider the matter keeping in view the similarity of facts in such cases. 16. The aforesaid Division Bench judgment has been rendered in a case where a forged transfer certificate of a Junior High School was utilized by the appellant therein. It is not clear from the said judgment as to whether in fact the appellants therein had actually passed Class VIII or not. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be held as a matter of fact that the case of the petitioner also stands on an identical footing. However, in view of the pronouncement of a Division Bench judgment of this Court which is binding on me and the University, which indicates a direction for reconsideration in a matter relating to a similar allegation of forged transfer certificate, the petitioner may represent her case to the competent authority for any similar treatment that may be given to the employees who were the appellants in the aforesaid Special Appeal Kailash Prasad Gupta v. Vice Chancellor and others, 2010(1) ADJ 731 (DB). 17. In case the petitioner so represents the claim shall be examined accordingly and an order shall be passed by the authority keeping in view the fact that the petitioner who is a lady had served the University for 14 years without any complaint about her conduct and was a mere Class IV employee. The petitioner has already attained the age of 46 years as per her affidavit and must be over age for any other employment. 18. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. —————