JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—Heard Mr Prabhakar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. In Writ A No. 36255 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.7.2002 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi. A further prayer has been made for issuance of mandamus commanding the Authorities to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner alongwith interest. In this writ petition, the challenge is mainly to the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner engaged as Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds. In Writ A No. 52569 of 2015, the petitioner has prayed for grant of Pay Scale in B.T.C. Grade to the petitioner w.e.f. November, 2011 alongwith interest on the delayed payment of arrears. 3. The petitioner was initially engaged as Assistant Teacher on 28.10.1996 on fixed Pay Scale on compassionate grounds as his father late Uma Kant Pandey had died in harness in 1991. At the time when the petitioner was appointed, he had completed Uttar Madhyama (Class XII) from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Varanasi, but the Marksheet issued to him incorrectly showed 30275 as his Roll number in place of 41318. The petitioner filed an application for correction of his Roll number to Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya, but such correction was not made and in the meantime his application for compassionate appointment was processed and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.10.1996. Later on, correction was made by Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya and a correct Marksheet alongwith Pass Certificate was issued to the petitioner with Roll No. 41318, but when the petitioner submitted his Marksheet and Pass Certificate in 2001, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for clarification as to how the petitioner had in his application mentioned Roll No. 30275. The petitioner was informed that on enquiry from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya by the respondents, it was found that on Roll No. 30275, the name of another person, Tej Pal Singh, son of Ram Kishun, has been mentioned. 4. The petitioner was informed that on enquiry from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya by the respondents, it was found that on Roll No. 30275, the name of another person, Tej Pal Singh, son of Ram Kishun, has been mentioned. 4. The petitioner on 4.2.2002 replied that there was clerical/typographical error in the Marksheet of the petitioner, and therefore, he had applied for its correction and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari should enquire from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya with respect to Roll No. 41318 also. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 5.3.2002 again enquired from the University and the University replied on 17.3.2002 that for Roll No. 30275, the name of Tej Pal Singh, son of Ram Kishun was mentioned in the records as having failed Uttar Madhyama Examination, 1993. 5. With respect to Roll No. 41318, however, it was informed that the name of Raj Kumar Pandey, son of Uma Kant Pandey has been shown as having passed in Second Division in Uttar Madhyama Examination, 1993. 6. In the order impugned, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has referred to contradictory informations sent from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya dated 21.9.2001 and 17.3.2002 and has also referred to the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment mentioning wrong Roll number i.e. Roll No. 30275. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari has drawn a conclusion therefrom that the petitioner intentionally supplied wrong information regarding his Roll number and is having passed Uttar Madhyama Examination from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya in 1993 at the time of initial appointment, and therefore, his services have been dispensed with/his initial appointment as Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground dated 28.10.1996 has been cancelled. 7. When this writ petition was filed on 2.9.2002, this Court had passed a time bound interim order staying the operation of the order dated 27.7.2002. The petitioner has continued to work on the basis of the said interim order till date. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari reiterating the contents of the impugned order dated 27.7.2002 and also stating therein that the petitioner had already moved an application for correction of Roll number in his Marksheet and Pass Certificate to the University on 15.9.1993, and therefore, he had complete knowledge about wrong Marksheet, yet having full knowledge of the fact that the Marksheet was not correct, he had applied for appointment, and had got appointment in 1996. The intentional misrepresentation had resulted in his appointment, and therefore, the respondents are entitled to cancel such appointment obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and concealment of fact. 9. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has stated that it is no doubt true that initial Marksheet submitted by the petitioner carried the Roll No. 30275, which was wrongly issued by the University and the petitioner had made an application for its correction and the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer due to mistake of the University in mentioning wrong Roll number in his Marksheet initially. 10. At the time of argument, Mr Prabhakar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised the fact that from the impugned order itself, it is evident that the petitioner had actually passed Uttar Madhyama Examination in 1993 i.e. before his appointment and he had possessed the essential educational qualification, although he did not possess training qualifications of BTC. His initial appointment was therefore, on fixed pay as Un-trained Teacher. At the time when his father died in 1991, the petitioner had not completed his Class XII examination and he completed Uttar Madhyama from the Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya only in 1993. At the time of issuance of Marksheet, the University made a mistake and wrongly mentioned his Roll number as 30275. The mistake was noticed by the petitioner and an application was made in September, 1993 itself, but before the said correction could be carried out in his Marksheet, he had moved his application for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was processed and he was given appointment as Assistant Teacher Un-trained in Primary School, Chanaura, Block Suriyawa, District Bhadohi. It was after correction of his Marksheet by the University and the petitioner himself filing the same before the Authority in 2001, that it came to the notice of the Authorities that the initial Marksheet submitted by him carried Roll No. 30275 and the later corrected Marksheet had Roll No. 41318. It was on the basis of this fact that enquiry was instituted. Now that the University had clarified in its reply dated 17.3.2002 that the petitioner had indeed passed Uttar Madhyama Examination in 1993 itself i.e. before his appointment, with Roll No. 41318, it could not be said appointment had been wrongly obtained by the petitioner. The order dated 27.7.2002 was thus, liable to be quashed. 11. Now that the University had clarified in its reply dated 17.3.2002 that the petitioner had indeed passed Uttar Madhyama Examination in 1993 itself i.e. before his appointment, with Roll No. 41318, it could not be said appointment had been wrongly obtained by the petitioner. The order dated 27.7.2002 was thus, liable to be quashed. 11. Mr Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, however, has pointed out that the petitioner had full knowledge of incorrect Marksheet and yet he applied, relying upon the same, and the order of cancellation of appointment has rightly been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner twice by Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 12. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may have initially, in his anxiety to obtain appointment due to financial hardship being faced by the family on the death of his father late Uma Kant Pandey, submitted an incorrect Marksheet as supplied by the Sampoornanand Vishwa Vidhyalaya with incorrect Roll number. The correction in the Marksheet was made by the University on application made by the petitioner, but by the time such correction was made, his application for compassionate appointment had already been processed, and therefore, the petitioner had accepted his appointment. 13. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer because of clerical mistake on the part of the office of the University. It has been clarified by the University itself, and has been admitted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the order impugned, that the petitioner had indeed passed Uttar Madhyama Examination in 1993 in second division, although with a different Roll number. The impugned order, is therefore, liable to be set aside and is set aside. 14. The Writ A No. 36255 of 2002 is allowed. 15. The petitioner has been continued on the basis of interim order granted by this Court on 2.9.2002 and he filed Writ A No. 3224 of 2015 (Raj Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court praying for grant of Pay Scale in BTC Grade w.e.f. December, 2001, which writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 29.1.2015 with an observation that the petitioner had completed BTC Training only in 2011, and therefore, could not be given BTC Grade w.e.f. December, 2001. 16. 16. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ A No. 52569 of 2015 praying for grant of Pay Scale in BTC Grade w.e.f. November, 2011. In the second writ petition, this Court on 14.9.2015 was informed by the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bhadohi that the petitioner was working on the basis of interim order granted on 2.9.2002 in Writ Petition No. 36255 of 2002 and therefore the second writ petition was connected with Writ A No. 36255 of 2002 and this Court observed that if the petitioner is still working, he shall be entitled to salary of BTC w.e.f. November, 2011. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by means of Circular issued by the Government on 1.2.2000 to the Director of Education (Basic), the Government had clarified that all un-trained Teachers, who had completed five years of continuous service, were entitled to be granted BTC Grade and they would be required to complete BTC Training thereafter. The petitioner had completed five years of continuous service in Un-trained Grade in December, 2001 itself, and therefore, he was entitled for BTC Grade w.e.f. December, 2001 in terms of the Government Order issued on 1.2.2000. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, admitted that the petitioner completed his BTC Training only in December, 2011 and he had made a representation to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for grant of BTC Grade i.e. Pay Scale in Pay Band-II, Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- thereafter. When his case was not being considered, he has filed Writ Petition No. 3224 of 2015, which was dismissed on 29.1.2015 with an observation that since the petitioner had completed BTC Training in the year 2011 only, he could not be given BTC Grade w.e.f. December, 2001. 19. Such order dated 29.1.2015 was not challenged by the petitioner and has attained finality. The petitioner cannot now be given BTC Training Grade w.e.f. December, 2001. He can only be given BTC Grade from the date, he completed his BTC Training in December, 2011. The petitioner has filed Pass Certificate issued by the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. dated 31.10.2011 and Marksheet issued after completion of BTC Course by the same Authority only on 22.2.2012. In his application made to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 8.7.2013, the petitioner has informed that he has completed BTC Course meant for persons appointed on compassionate grounds on 22.2.2012. The petitioner has filed Pass Certificate issued by the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. dated 31.10.2011 and Marksheet issued after completion of BTC Course by the same Authority only on 22.2.2012. In his application made to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 8.7.2013, the petitioner has informed that he has completed BTC Course meant for persons appointed on compassionate grounds on 22.2.2012. 20. Since, Writ A No. 36255 of 2002 has been allowed by this Court, it would be appropriate that BTC Grade as contemplated in Government Order dated 1.2.2000 be given to the petitioner w.e.f. the date, he passed his BTC Training and was issued Marksheet in this regard i.e. w.e.f the date, he was issued the Pass Certificate on 31.10.2011, and therefore, the petitioner should be granted BTC Grade w.e.f. November, 2011. 21. The Writ Petition No. 52569 of 2015 also stands allowed to this extent. 22. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari is further directed to issue necessary orders with regard to the petitioner, giving him arrears of salary and difference in arrears of salary, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.