JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2020 and consequential communications dated 31.07.2020 and 11.09.2020 passed by the respondent Corporation. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially engaged as labourer on 14.10.1987. He was granted promotion as Patrol Man on 10.10.2003, and thereafter, granted promotion as Technical Grade-I on 16.05.2006 and the grade pay of TG-II, thereafter. The respondents have issued an Office Memorandum on 03.10.2018 proposing to make promotion from Combined Seniority List of all Distribution Companies and Transmission Companies of TG-II to the post of Junior Engineer. The Combined Seniority List prepared for this purpose for consideration of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer also had the name of the petitioner. The selection was carried out by the respondent no. 2, on the basis of marks awarded for High School, ITI/higher technical qualification and experience as given in the Office Memorandum. For High School 30 marks were to be awarded, for ITI/higher technical qualification 35 marks were to be awarded and for each year of service rendered as TG-II one mark was to be awarded up to the maximum of 35 marks. In pursuance of the selection held by the respondent no. 2, a select list was sent to the respondent no.1 on 03.03.2019 relating to 40% quota meant for promotion from the Feeder cader of TG-II, the petitioner's name found place in such select list and he was promoted on 04.03.2019, later on, the respondent no.2 communicated that certain complaints had been received and had re-examined the issue and it was found that the petitioner did not possess High School Certificate, and therefore, could not have been awarded 30 marks. 4. His selection was cancelled by the respondent no.2, consequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.08.2019 informing him of the decision of the respondent no.2 and the proposed cancellation of his promotion. The petitioner was asked to submit reply to the Show Cause Notice, which he submitted on 17.08.2019. The same was forwarded to the respondent No.2 for its comments. The respondent no. The petitioner was asked to submit reply to the Show Cause Notice, which he submitted on 17.08.2019. The same was forwarded to the respondent No.2 for its comments. The respondent no. 2 by its letter dated 25.09.2019 informed that no fresh material had been supplied by the petitioner to review its earlier decision of cancellation of his selection as informed by it in its earlier letter dated 03.07.2019. The petitioner was called for personal hearing thereafter, on 08.11.2019, the petitioner's statement was recorded and his explanation was again sent to the respondent no.2 on 11.11.2019 for it's earlier comments The responded no.2 by its letter no. 2183 dated 11.12.2019 informed that its earlier decision given by its letter dated 25.09.2019 still stands and there was no reason to review it. Consequently, the petitioner's promotion was set aside with retrospective effect and a direction was also issued to recover the excess amount, if any, paid due to such promotion to the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by the learner counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed only on the basis that Adhikari Pariksha Certificate, which the petitioner possessed was not equivalent to High School, and therefore, 30 marks had been wrongly given to the petitioner, however, this Court by a Full Bench decision rendered in Writ-A No. 48208 of 2012 on 09.10.2013 has provided that Adhikari Pariksha certificate issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura was valid up to the year 2008, as it was recognised by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgement rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court in various cases namely: Writ-A No. 56266 of 2013, (Nitendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) decided on 23.10.2020 and Writ-A No. 44989 of 2010 (Danish Laeiq and State f U.P. and Others) decided on 02.08.2010, to say that it has now been settled by this Court that Adhikari Pariksha certificate issued before 2008 was equivalent to High School and the petitioner had obtained such certificate in the year 2005, therefore, his selection could not have been set aside and the Order impugned is vitiated. 7. 7. Initially this Court had entertained the Writ Petition and by a detailed Order dated 09.12.2020 stayed the operation of the order dated 27.07.2020, however, the petitioner was not permitted to work on the promoted post and the petitioner was forced to file a contempt petition namely Contempt Application No. 4051 of 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Contempt Court was informed that the Stay Vacation Application along with the counter affidavit had been filed in the Writ Petition and the matter was directed to be taken up after decision on the Stay Vacation Application. 8. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to his counter affidavit and paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the same to say that the the petitioner's candidature was considered treating him to have qualified High School and also to have possessed ITI/higher technical qualification, however, on close scrutiny of his application form, it was found that the petitioner did not posses High School certificate and did not also posses ITI/higher technical qualification. Even if, in pursuance of the decision of the Full Bench judgement in the case of Dhanpal and Others Vs. State of U.P., the Adhikari Prakash Certificate of the petitioner is taken to be valid and equivalent to High School certificate, he would only be awarded 30 marks for the same, and 35 marks that had been wrongly given to him for ITI qualifications would still not be available and the petitioner had rendered a maximum of 12 years of service as TG-II and 12 marks would be awarded to him for that period of service. Still his marks would come to only 42, which were less than that of the last selected candidate, one Fida Husain S/o Maqbool Husain, who had been given 30 marks for High School and 21 marks for 21 years of service as TG-II i.e. 51 marks. The petitioner would not be entitled for promotion even if his contention is accepted that he possessed Adhikari Prakash certificate, which was recognised as equivalent to High School up till 2008. 9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is now not open for the respondent to change their stand and improvise upon the reasons for cancellation of his promotion. 9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is now not open for the respondent to change their stand and improvise upon the reasons for cancellation of his promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgements referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Commissioner of the Police, Bombay Vs. Goverdhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that if an order is made by public Auhtority in an exercise of Statuory function assigned to it, it has to be taken and validated only on the basis of the reason mentioned therein. It cannot be construed in the light of the explanations subsequently given by the officer making such order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Constitution Bench in the Case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 851 . 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgement rendered in Special Appeal Deffective No. 317 of 2018 decided on 27.09.2018, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit. 12. It has been argued that the Division Bench has held on the basis of judgements rendered in Commissioner of the Police, Bombay Vs. Goverdhandas Bhanji (Supra) and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another (Supra) that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain gounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reason in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the begining may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the order dated 27.02.2020 and finds that only one reason has been given for cancellation of promotion of the petitioner and that reason is non-possession of High School or Class-X equivalent certificate by the petitioner. The said reason cannot stand in view of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the Case of Dhanpal and Others (Supra). The said reason cannot stand in view of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the Case of Dhanpal and Others (Supra). The order impugned is liable to be set aside as having been passed on a mis-conceived ground. 14. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, at this stage, says that even if the order dated 27.07.2020 is found by this Court to be invalid, the petitioner would even otherwise not be entitled for promotion as he does not possess ITI qualifications. As has been mentioned in paragraph no. 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, he would still get only 42 marks by adding his High School/Adhikari Pariksha Certificate with his marks for service rendered by him as T.G.-II. It would be a futile exercise for the respondents if this Court pleases to remand the matter to the respondents to pass a fresh order. This Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can look into additional facts/grounds as mentioned in the counter affidavit and make an appropriate order. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ground taken for cancellation of promotion as given in the order impugned dated 27.07.2020 does not exist, therefore, the order dated 27.07.2020 is vitiated and is quashed. However, it shall open for the respondents to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order considering the petitioner's case on its own merits within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this Order is produced before him. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of.