JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution. 2. Heard. I have perused the record. 3. The Service Selection Board of the State, herein respondent No. 1, issued vacancy Notification No. 01 of 1999 dated 09.03.1999 inviting applications for the post of teachers in various districts including District, Udhampur. The last date for receipt of the applications by hand or by post was fixed as 31.03.1999, which was subsequently extended up to 15.04.1999. According to the petitioners, qualification for the post was given as 10+2 with 50 per cent marks or above. This has not denied by respondent No. 1. Petitioners applied for District Cadre, Udhampur under Scheduled Caste (SC) category. In terms of Notice No. SSB/PA/Secy/826/2001, dated 02.03.2001. Respondent No. 1 notified following selection criteria: Basic qualification :40 points Graduation :10 points (1st Division) 06 points (2nd Division) 04 points (3rd Division) Post graduation :10 points (1st Division) 06 points (2nd Division) 04 points (3rd Division) B.Ed: 10 points M.Ed:10 points Viva Voce :20 points Subsequently respondent No. 1 issued short listing criteria inter alia mentioning therein that additional qualification/reserved category certificates which have been issued after last date of receipt of application forms shall not be considered. As per the record produced on behalf of respondent No. 1 short listing criteria was announced on 30.04.2001. 4. Interview/viva voce was held and select list for District Cadre, Udhampur was issued and published by respondent No. 1 on 03.01.2002. Petitioners were not selected whereas respondents 5 to 33 (hereinafter referred to as the private respondents) were selected under SC category. Petitioners by the medium of this writ petition seek writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the selection of private respondents and writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to select and appoint them as teachers under SC category under District Cadre, Udhampur. 5. Case of petitioner No. 1 as demonstrated by Mr. O. P. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, primarily and mainly is that he as at the time of the last date fixed for receipt of application forms was possessing basic qualification of 10+2, and higher qualification of B.Sc. Besides, he was B.Ed. He had appeared in the B.Ed, examination in the year 1998, October session, the result whereof was declared on 08.03.1999, wherein he was shown as reappear in Paper-III. Besides, he was B.Ed. He had appeared in the B.Ed, examination in the year 1998, October session, the result whereof was declared on 08.03.1999, wherein he was shown as reappear in Paper-III. He applied for revaluation of the said paper, the result whereof was notified vide Notification No. 01, dated 18.05.1999 and he was declared to have passed the said paper. In support of this contention, petitioner has produced a certificate dated 12.06.2001 issued by Assistant Registrar (EXAMS.) of the Jammu University. It is averred in this regard that all the documents of the candidates were checked and verified by a clerk before allowing them to appear before the interviewers. That clerk, however, did not take on record the copy of marks-card of B.Ed, examination and the certificate issued by the University produced by him on the ground that the same were issued after the cutoff date, that is, 15.04.1999. He, however, was allowed to appear before the interviewers. The interviewers also refused to accept the certificates produced by him. Besides, all the petitioners have questioned the selection criteria fixed by respondent No. 1 and assailed the selection of all the private respondents on that score. It is averred that the criteria was unconstitutional and illegal for the reason that allocation of 40 points to 10+2 examination resulted in miscarriage of justice to the persons who had acquired higher qualification but were having lesser marks in the basic qualification of 10+2. Petitioners have also alleged that they are superior in merit than the private respondents. 6. When this case came up for hearing, main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioners was on non-consideration of the B.Ed, degree of petitioner No. 1 that deprived him of 10 points on that score as provided under the selection criteria. The question, thus, raised for determination in this writ petition is: Whether on the basis of the result declared after revaluation of Paper-III, petitioner No. 1 can be deemed to have acquired B.Ed, degree prior to the cutoff date, that is, 15.04.1999? 7. Ancillary question would be: Whether petitioner No. 1 would have been selected had he been given the benefit of B.Ed, degree? 8. 7. Ancillary question would be: Whether petitioner No. 1 would have been selected had he been given the benefit of B.Ed, degree? 8. The ancillary question, however, needs to be taken up first for the reason that the primarily question would be of no importance if even after giving petitioner No. 1 the benefit of B.Ed, degree there is no change in situation. 9. Record produced by respondent No. 1 includes a list of all the candidates who appeared in the interview/viva voce for District Cadre, Udhampur giving complete breakup of points obtained by them on the basis of their basic qualification, additional qualification and vive voce. Petitioner No. 1 figures at Serial No. 26 in the list of the candidates, who had applied under SC category. He has obtained 34.46 points. The select list, which is also available on the record, would show that 24 candidates were selected under SC category and 05 were kept in the wait list (all private respondents herein). The last candidate in the select list has obtained 39.86 points. The petitioner No. 1, thus, missed the selection by 4.4 points only. As per the selection criteria, 10 points were allocated for B.Ed. Had the benefit of B.Ed, been given to the petitioner, he would have secured 44.46 points that would have assured him selection higher up in the select list, that is, after Bodh Raj figuring at Serial No. 9, who secure 46.53 points and before Manisha figuring at Serial No. 10, who secured 43.99 points. The primary question, thus, goes in favour of petitioner No. 1 and the primary question assumes importance, which is taken up below. 10. The facts that petitioner No. 1 had undergone B.Ed, course through Distance Education of Jammu University, he appeared in annual examination, 1998, October session, result whereof was declared on 08.03.1999 in which he was shown in reappear category in Paper-III and that he pursuant to his application for revaluation was declared to have passed the examination vide Notification No. 01, dated 08.05.1998 have not been disputed by respondents 2 to 4, who have filed counter to this writ petition. All these facts are supported by and can be accepted on the basis of the certificate dated 12.06.2001 (Annexure-C) issued by University of Jammu, which reads: "University of Jammu No. Exams./B.Ed/2001/8044 Dated-12-6-2001 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. This is to certify that Jagdish Chander S/o. Sh. All these facts are supported by and can be accepted on the basis of the certificate dated 12.06.2001 (Annexure-C) issued by University of Jammu, which reads: "University of Jammu No. Exams./B.Ed/2001/8044 Dated-12-6-2001 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. This is to certify that Jagdish Chander S/o. Sh. Nanak Chand Regd. No. 7864-UC-92, was a regular student of Distance Education, Jammu University. He appeared in B.Ed. Annual Examination 1998(Oct. Session) under Roll No. 2839 and got re-appear in Paper IV & English (Trends in Education). He subsequently applied for Re-evaluation consequent upon re-evaluation he was declared pass Vide Noti. No. 1, dt. 18-5-1999. He secured 334 marks in Theory and 274 marks in Practice of Teaching. The main result of the said examination was declared on 8th March 1999. Thus the candidate passed B.Ed, examination during Annual 1998(Oct. Session). SD/- ASSTT. REGISTRAR EXAMS,)" 11. Likewise, there is no rebuttal to the fact that petitioner No. 1 had produced the B.Ed, marks-sheet and the certificate at the time of his interview which, however, was not entertained by the Interviewers. 12. Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued vehemently that petitioner No. 1 shall be deemed to have passed B.Ed, examination on the date of the declaration of main result on 08.03.1999, that is, prior to the cutoff date fixed as 15.04.1999 so he should not have been deprived of its benefit, particularly when the certificate in this regard was produced by him at the time of his interview/viva voce. Mr. Thakur, in support of his argument relied upon a DB judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ku. Sadhana v. Vikram University, Ujjain and others, AIR 1986 MP 181 . 13. Per contra, Mr. Nadeem Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, argued that no qualification acquired or certificate obtained after the cutoff date was of any value nor could have been given any benefit because of the clear condition in this regard in the selection criteria. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG argued that the persons who competed but were not selected have no locus standi to call in question the selection of selected candidates. 14. Undisputedly, petitioner No. 1 had undergone B.Ed, course through Distance Education of Jammu University and appeared in annual examination, 1998, October Session, that is, prior to the vacancy notification dated 09.03.1999. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG argued that the persons who competed but were not selected have no locus standi to call in question the selection of selected candidates. 14. Undisputedly, petitioner No. 1 had undergone B.Ed, course through Distance Education of Jammu University and appeared in annual examination, 1998, October Session, that is, prior to the vacancy notification dated 09.03.1999. His result was declared on 08.03.1999, that is, a day prior to the date of vacancy notification dated 9.3.1999 and much prior to the cutoff date, that is, 15.04.1999. Had the petitioner No. 1 not been shown in reappear category and been declared as having passed the examination, the B.Ed, degree/certificate would have been in his possession prior to the cutoff date. In that case the petitioner No. 1 without any difficulty would have had obtained benefit of that degree and got 10 more points in the selection process. The points obtained by him in that case would have been 44.46 and he would have figured in the select list at a higher place as explained above. What came in the way of petitioner No. 1, however, was showing him in reappear category in the result declared on 08.03.1999, which was purely a mistake on the part of University that later came to be admitted by the University and rectified pursuant to application for revaluation of petitioner No". l. University was fair enough in issuing certificate in this regard. The interviewers, however, cannot be said to have acted considerately in refusing to entertain the B.Ed, certificate or the marks-sheet produced by petitioner No. 1 and thereby penalizing him for no fault of his, which should not have been. 15. Revaluation of a paper of a candidate from its very nature is a process of rectifying an error committed while preparing his result. Declaring a candidate as having passed the examination after revaluation of his paper(s) is nothing but the correction of the error in the result earlier declared and cannot be taken as the result declared later than the original result. Such a candidate, therefore, acquires the qualification as on the date of the original result and not on the date of declaration of result on the basis of revaluation. In Ku. Sadhna's case (supra), result of M.Sc. (previous) examination in Chemistry held in March-April, 1985 was declared on 08.07.1985 and petitioner was declared to have failed. Such a candidate, therefore, acquires the qualification as on the date of the original result and not on the date of declaration of result on the basis of revaluation. In Ku. Sadhna's case (supra), result of M.Sc. (previous) examination in Chemistry held in March-April, 1985 was declared on 08.07.1985 and petitioner was declared to have failed. On her application for revaluation, the result of revaluation was declared on 15.11.1985 and the petitioner was declared to have passed. She, however, was refused admission in M.Sc.(final) on the ground that last date fixed for admission to the college was 31.07.1985. In such factual backdrop, learned Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held in para 6 of the reporting: "6.....If as a result of revaluation the petitioner has passed the examination, then it would mean that her earlier result declared by the University was erroneous. The petitioner cannot be penalized for this error in declaration of her result. Therefore, the application for admission to the M.Sc.(Final) Class made by the petitioner after the declaration of the result of revaluation cannot be rejected on the ground that the last date for submitting application for admission had expired...." 16. I would, thus, hold that petitioner No. 1 shall be deemed to have acquired B.Ed, degree on 08.03.1999, that is, a day prior to the vacancy Notification, when the result of B.Ed, was originally declared. He cannot be said to have acquired B.Ed, qualification after the cutoff date merely for the reason that result on revaluation was declared after the cutoff date. His inability to obtain his B.Ed, degree or a certificate prior to the cutoff date, could not have come in the way of giving him the benefit of B.Ed, and doing so was nothing but penalizing him without any fault on his part and infraction of his fundamental right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to ten points for additional qualification of B.Ed. By adding these ten points to the points said to have been obtained by him the total points obtained by him in the selection process pursuant to vacancy Notification 1999 goes up to 44.46 points. The last selected candidate in SC category has secured 39.86 points. 17. Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to ten points for additional qualification of B.Ed. By adding these ten points to the points said to have been obtained by him the total points obtained by him in the selection process pursuant to vacancy Notification 1999 goes up to 44.46 points. The last selected candidate in SC category has secured 39.86 points. 17. Now that selection process have since been completed and appointment orders issued, petitioner No. 1 shall be deemed to have been selected in the same selection process and to figure after the candidate figuring at Serial No. 8 and before the candidate figuring at Serial No. 9 in the list of 24 candidates selected under SC Category for the reason as explained above. 18. I, however, do not find any merit in the grievance of the other petitioners. Both of them admittedly have taken part in the selection process fully aware of the selection criteria notified by respondent No. 1. They have no grievance against the points awarded to them and it is not their case that they could have made their way to select list had some other candidate or candidates not been selected. 19. For aforementioned reasons, this writ petition to the extent of petitioner No. 1 is allowed, however, without disturbing selection and appointment of any other candidate in the select list for the reason of long gap of time after the completion of selection process till date. By issue of writ of certiorari, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to take the petitioner as having been selected as teacher under SC category in District Cadre, Udhampur pursuant to Notification No. 01 of 1999, and appoint him accordingly, notionally from the date of appointment of the candidate figuring at Serial No. 10 in the select list under SC category and monetarily from the date of this judgment and fix his seniority accordingly. Respondents are further directed to complete all administrative formalities including creation of supernumerary post, if so required to implement this judgment. 20. Writ petition to the extent of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed as without any merit. 21. Disposed of. Petition disposed of