JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Training Course- 2008 showing his marks in B.Ed. examination as 323 out of 600 in theory and 378 out of 400 in practical. He was student of B.Ed. in Desh Deepak Adarsh Mahavidhyalaya Tendua Mafi Beekapur, Faizabad. The institution is affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Audh Vishwavidhyalaya, Faizabad (U.P.). The last date of submission of the application for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2008 was 20th February, 2009. The petitioner applied for the said training course alongwith all the documents and testimonials he possessed till then. Later on, it appears that the petitioner appeared in some back paper and examination result was declared on 2nd September, 2009 and his marks in theory were increased from 323 to 339 out of 600. 3. In the light of the result of back paper, the representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.2009, requesting the Director, S.E.R.T.I. Nishatganj, Lucknow to consider his candidature based on the marks he had obtained in back-paper of B.Ed., the result whereof declared on 2nd September, 2009, is pending and the counsel for the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide his representation taking into account the increased marks of the petitioner in back paper. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1920 of 2010, (Ankit Kumar Tiwari and another v. State of U.P. and others) contended that he is also entitled for the same direction. 5. Having considered the submission carefully, I do not find myself to agree with him. It is admitted that the petitioner was supposed to furnish full details of his educational qualification, marks obtained therein etc. alongwith his application form, the last date whereof was 20th February, 2009. Admittedly, till then the petitioner had the documents showing his theory marks in B.Ed. as 323 and that is what he submitted alongwith application form. 6. It is admitted that the petitioner was supposed to furnish full details of his educational qualification, marks obtained therein etc. alongwith his application form, the last date whereof was 20th February, 2009. Admittedly, till then the petitioner had the documents showing his theory marks in B.Ed. as 323 and that is what he submitted alongwith application form. 6. The short question, which is to decide is, whether the subsequent event whereby the petitioner has got higher marks, can be treated to relate back with the initial examination so as to make the effect of back paper and the revised marks entitle the incumbent to claim benefit thereof in a case where the last date of submission of the application form or submission of any document had already expired. 7. There can be two circumstances in which the marks obtained by a candidate in his examination stands revised. Sometimes where provisions exist, the candidate apply for scrutiny or revaluation of his answer sheets if he suspects anything wrong in the marks disclosed in his result and if his complaint is found true and on revaluation or scrutiny the marks obtained by the candidate are declared increased to some extent, there would be no difficulty at all to relate back the effect of such scrutiny or revaluation, inasmuch as, here is a case of mistake of fact or declaration by the Examining Body itself and for fault of the Examining Body, the candidate cannot be made to suffer because this is admitted by the Examining Body that it has committed mistake in declaration of lower marks though the candidate was entitled of higher marks and they rectify the same. 8. In my view, in such a case the mark sheet issued to the candidate would stand corrected from the date it was originally issued and even if last date for submission of an application form or a document has expired and such an eventuality takes place on a later date, the candidate can be given the benefit of such increased marks and the authority would be entitled to consider the revised mark sheet. In fact it is a case of reappraisal of marks itself and the original mark sheet issued to the candidate becomes non est from its inception and stands substituted by the revised mark sheet. In fact it is a case of reappraisal of marks itself and the original mark sheet issued to the candidate becomes non est from its inception and stands substituted by the revised mark sheet. Whether the candidate apply for scrutiny or revaluation before the last date of submission of the application form or subsequent thereto would be wholly irrelevant so long as he had validly applied for the same and such request has been accepted by the Examining Body. 9. However, second is a contingency where if the statutes permit a candidate whose result is already declared, may be allowed to improve his position by freshly appearing in some papers, which are normally called “back paper” and there he secure better marks than what he has got earlier. The question would be, whether the subsequent transaction would entitle the candidate to claim the benefit of the fresh mark sheet to be treated as a substitute of original mark sheet with retrospective effect, even in those cases, where the last date for submission of the application form or document has already been expired, I find that in none of the judgments cited and relied by the counsel for the petitioner, this issue has been raised, argued and decided. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgments relied on by the petitioner lay down any law on this issue. In fact they are all silent on the legal aspect of the matter and only a direction has been issued to the respondents to consider the marks of the candidate received in back paper without deciding the issue whether such mark sheet, in law, could have been considered or not. 10. In Ankit Kumar Tiwari (supra) the Hon’ble Single Judge passed following order on 18th January, 2010 : “The petitioners, by means of this writ petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to entertain their new mark-sheets for the purposes of preparing the merit list for appointment in Special B.T.C. training course 2008. The petitioners after applying for the above course appeared in the back paper and their marks were increased. They want that on the basis of the increased marks their names in the merit list be included. The petitioners after applying for the above course appeared in the back paper and their marks were increased. They want that on the basis of the increased marks their names in the merit list be included. In writ petition of Sushil Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ADJ 375 , this Court in similar circumstances has allowed the writ petition and permitted the filing and consideration of the mark-sheets of the back papers to the petitioners as the same were presented before the authority concerned before the declaration of the result. Following the above decision, another bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2009 passed in writ petition No. 70082 of 2009, Akhilesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and others, directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners on the basis of the improved marks secured in the back paper. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of at this stage, with the consent of the parties, in the light of the aforesaid decisions and it is directed that the respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioners as per their improved marks in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.” 11. His Lordship has relied on the earlier judgment of Sushil Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ADJ 375 and Writ Petition No. 70082 of 2009 (Akhilesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 22nd December, 2009. 12. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Sushil Kumar Singh’s case (supra) shows that the same has been decided in terms of the judgment dated 22.5.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 39289 of 2000, (Kamlesh Kumar Yadav v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and others) as affirmed in Special Appeal No. 86 of 2004 decided on 11.9.2007. This leads to the judgment in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra). A perusal of the judgment shows that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav passed B.Ed. examination securing 3rd Division in theory. He appeared in back papers under the provision of Statute of the University concerned and improved his position by securing 2nd Division in Theory papers. This leads to the judgment in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra). A perusal of the judgment shows that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav passed B.Ed. examination securing 3rd Division in theory. He appeared in back papers under the provision of Statute of the University concerned and improved his position by securing 2nd Division in Theory papers. The degree was awarded by the University to him on 1st February, 1998 mentioning that he has passed B.Ed examination and has secured 2nd Division in Theory paper and 1st Division in practical paper. The application was filed by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav on 17th March, 1998 alongwith which he could not file mark sheet showing the marks obtained by him in back papers but before declaration of the result, he filed the same. Though his documents subsequently submitted were rejected by the Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad on the ground that after the last date of receipt of application form no fresh document can be entertained but this Court observed that the facts are not disputed that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav had passed B.Ed. Course viz. 2nd Division in theory paper and 1st Division in practical papers as per degree awarded to him on 1st February, 1998 by the University and therefore the Director ought to have taken into consideration the marks obtained by him in consequence of the back paper as per degree awarded to him. 13. The judgment in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra) clearly show that since the B.Ed. degree was issued to him on 1st February, 1998 showing that he had passed in Theory in 2nd Division which was admittedly before date of submission of the application form, and this fact having not been disputed, this Court granted relief to him directing the respondent to take into consideration the marks of Kamlesh Kumar Yadav according to the degree awarded to him which was in accordance with the marks he has obtained in back paper. It is true that this Court, while considering Sushil Kumar Singh’s case (supra) found as a matter of fact that the mark sheet was awarded to Kamlesh Kumar Yadav on 25th August, 1998 and not prior to March, 1998 which is the last date of submission of application form and even then he was allowed relief by the Court extending the benefit of the said judgment to the petitioners in Sushil Kumar Singh’s case. 14. 14. So far as this case is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that the degree has been awarded to him before last date of the application form showing his marks according to the result in back paper. In fact the case of the petitioner is that he, having passed B.Ed. examination in 2009 itself, the degree has not been issued so far and only a mark sheet was issued to him on 17th February, 2009 showing 323 marks in theory paper which he submitted alongwith his application form on 20th February, 2009 and in fact he appeared in back paper subsequent to the last date of submission of the application form and has secured higher marks only in the result declared in September, 2009 vide mark sheet dated 2nd September, 2009. The entire transaction in the case in hand with respect to the revised mark sheet as a result of petitioner’s appearing in back paper is subsequent to the last date of submission of the application form and therefore apparently the judgment of this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra) has no application. 15. The other judgements having simply followed Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra) and its follow up judgments, therefore also inapplicable since no issue at all has been considered therein. At this stage the question as to whether the transaction which has taken place subsequent to the last date of submission of application form can be taken into account or not can be considered in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and another v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 , wherein the last date of submission of the application form was 20th August 1988. The qualification necessary to be possessed by the candidate was a degree of Bachelor in Laws. The candidate was also required to submit law degree examination certificate and mark sheet alongwith application form. Alpana, who filed application had appeared in the Law examination in 1988 before 20th August, 1988 but till the last date of submission of application form her result of the law examination had not been declared. The result of law examination was declared in October, 1988. Alpana, who filed application had appeared in the Law examination in 1988 before 20th August, 1988 but till the last date of submission of application form her result of the law examination had not been declared. The result of law examination was declared in October, 1988. However, she submitted the application form in anticipation of her clearance of the Law examination in which she was found successful in the result declared in October, 1988. However, the U.P. Public Service Commission cancelled her candidature on the ground that she was not eligible since she had not passed law examination up to 20th August, 1988. The writ petition filed before this Court was allowed. The writ petition No. 18918 of 1991 was allowed by this Court vide judgement dated 17th March, 1993 observing that the result would relate back to the date of examination and therefore cancellation of candidature of Alpana was illegal. This Court followed the Apex Court decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandra Shekher, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611. Reversing the decision of this Court in appeal filed by the Commission, the Apex Court distinguished the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and observed as under : “........Whether this decision was correct or not was not gone into as Sahai, J. was of the view that it would be unfair to quash selection after such a long lapse of time. It was thus on equitable considerations that the learned Judge ultimately agreed with the order proposed by the majority. Two things stand out from this judgment, namely, the majority applied by analogy the principle of Rule 37 whereas Sahai, J. endorsed the decision on equitable consideration. It must, however, be noticed that in that case a conscious decision was taken by the Secretary of the Department that such candidates who submitted the applications after the last date for receipt of applications but before the interviews were held should be considered eligible for appointment. This decision was not challenged and its validity was not required to be gone into. Pursuant to this decision such candidates were examined and selected on merits and were ultimately appointed. It was only when they were granted seniority over others that the latter challenged their appointments after a long lapse of time. The Court was, therefore, reluctant to disturb the status quo.” 16. Pursuant to this decision such candidates were examined and selected on merits and were ultimately appointed. It was only when they were granted seniority over others that the latter challenged their appointments after a long lapse of time. The Court was, therefore, reluctant to disturb the status quo.” 16. Thereafter the legal question as to whether the subsequent declaration of result could make the petitioner eligible and would relate back to the date of examination or not was considered in para 6 of the judgment, and, the Apex Court has held as under : “In the facts of the present case we fail to appreciate how the ratio of the said decision of this Court can be attracted. The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was August 20, 1988. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. The High Court in Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1991 mandated the Public Service Commission to interview her but directed to withhold the result until further orders. In obedience to the directive of the High Court the Public Service Commission interviewed her but her result was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court while disposing of the matter finally directed the Public Service Commission to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name for appointment. The High Court even went to the length of ordering the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal.” 17. This is what has been held by this Court also in Writ Petition No. 19404 of 2005 (Arvind Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.) decided on 19th April, 2006 wherein this Court held as under : “The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the certificate issued by the University declaring him successful in B.P.Ed Examination relates back to the Year 2001 as the certificate issued by the University is the year 2001 and therefore, he should be treated to be an eligible applicant for applying for the Special BTC 2004. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be lucrative in the first instance. However, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the matter is squarely covered by three decisions of the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and Commission, U.P. Allahabad and another v. Alpana, 1994(2)SCC 723 and in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Sekhar and another, 1997 (4) SCC 18 , in which the Supreme Court held that if a candidate does not possess the requisite prescribed qualification on or before the last date prescribed for receiving the application by the respondents, in that event, the candidate was eligible to apply or apply for the said examination. In the present case, the petitioner did not had a degree in B.P.Ed examination on or before the last date of receiving the application for the Special BTC 2004 and the degree was granted after the results were declared on 19.8.2004. In the present case, the petitioner did not had a degree in B.P.Ed examination on or before the last date of receiving the application for the Special BTC 2004 and the degree was granted after the results were declared on 19.8.2004. Even through the said degree relates back to the year 2001, nevertheless, the petitioner was not eligible on the date when the advertisement was made nor was eligible on the date of the receiving of the applications in as much the result was not declared on or before that date. Consequently, the judgement, as cited aforesaid, are fully applicable to the present facts circumstances of the case. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition is dismissed. 18. This Court has further taken a view that only such document as were available to a candidate on or before the last date of submission of the application form can be considered by the authorities concerned but if a document has been possessed later on cannot be allowed to be considered. This is how while deciding the Special Appeal No. 579 of 2000 (Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training and others v. Raj Kishor, 2006(9) ADJ 660 (DB) a Division Bench of this Court also observed as under : “This Court therefore, directed the appellant No. 1 to consider the document of the candidate which if he possessed much before the last date of submission of the application form and provided the said documents are genuine and in case they are selected, to give all consequential benefits. We are in the entire agreement with the reasoning given in the aforesaid judgment.” 19. In view of the above, I am categorically of the opinion that the marks obtained by the petitioner in back paper as a result of his appearing therein after the last date of submission of the application form cannot be allowed to be considered by respondent No. 2 for considering his candidature for admission in Special B.T.C. Course, 2008 since the same would not relate back entitling him to seek a direction to the respondent No. 2 to take into account the new marks which he has obtained subsequently as a result of his appearing in back paper. The writ petition therefore lacks merit. Dismissed. 20. No order as to costs. ————