Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1774 (ALL)

Garima Vashishtha v. State of U. P.

2023-07-25

MANJIVE SHUKLA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4. 2. Petitioner through present writ petition has challenged the order dated 3.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun, whereby appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Khiriya Rahlu, Block Jagat, District Budaun has been cancelled with effect from the date of her initial appointment. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Pyrayagraj published an advertisement thereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019. The aforesaid examination was conducted for making appointments on 69,000 posts of Assistant Teacher in primary schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. 4. Petitioner submitted her online application and she was allotted Registration No.0300067918. The petitioner pursuant to her application appeared in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 and was declared successful. Thereafter, on the basis of marks obtained by the petitioner in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019, she submitted her application for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. Petitioner pursuant to her application, appeared in the counselling for district Budaun on 3.6.2020 and she was declared successful for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school of district Budaun. Petitioner’s name figured at Serial No.226 of the select list prepared by the department and in the aforesaid list it was mentioned that petitioner has obtained 70.11 quality point marks. 6. The aforesaid counselling and select list prepared was cancelled and thereafter, counselling was again held on 2.12.2020 and this time also, petitioner’s name figured at Serial No.253 and her quality point marks were mentioned as 70.11 but in front of her name, a remark was written that ‘there is difference in High School and Intermediate marks filled in by the petitioner and Cumulative Grade Point Average (C.G.P.A.)’. 7. 7. The State Government issued a Government Order on 4.12.2020, wherein it has been provided that if the marks filled in by the candidate in the application form are less than the actual marks shown in his marksheet, then affidavit be taken from the said candidate that he is in agreement with his position in the select list on the basis of his lower marks and he will not claim for higher position in the said list, thereafter, he may be issued appointment letter. In the Government Order dated 4.12.2020, it has been further provided that if the candidate, while filling up the form, has mentioned the total marks for which the examination was conducted more than the marks mentioned in his mark sheet, affidavit be taken from the said candidate that on the basis of higher marks, he will not claim a higher position in the select list and he may be issued appointment letter. 8. Petitioner in her High School examination secured CGPA-9.2 but while filling up the Application Form for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019, she filled the marks obtained by her as 9 and total marks for High School examination as 10 and therefore, while calculating the percentage of marks of High School examination of the petitioner, it was taken as 90%, whereas as per CGPA-9.2, her percentage of marks comes to 9.5 x CGPA i.e. 9.5 x 9.2 i.e. 87.4%. Thus, it is apparent that due to incorrect marks of High School examination filled in by the petitioner in her application form, she was at an advantageous stage as her percentage became 90% in place of 87.4%. 9. Petitioner while filling up her application form for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 filled in the marks obtained by her in Intermediate examination as 331 and the total marks of the Intermediate examination as 500 whereas actually petitioner has secured 360 marks out of 500 marks. On the basis of entry of the marks of the Intermediate examination in the application form, petitioner’s percentage was calculated as 66.2%, whereas as per the marks mentioned in her mark-sheet of Intermediate examination, her percentage comes to 72%. 10. On the basis of entry of the marks of the Intermediate examination in the application form, petitioner’s percentage was calculated as 66.2%, whereas as per the marks mentioned in her mark-sheet of Intermediate examination, her percentage comes to 72%. 10. If the mistake committed by the petitioner while filling up her application form for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 and the petitioner’s marks in High School and Intermediate examination are taken together, then it is patently manifest that due to the mistake committed by the petitioner she was at a disadvantageous stage as the average marks of her High School and Intermediate examination come to 79.7% whereas the average marks on the basis of incorrect entries come to 78.1%. 11. Petitioner in paragraph 53 of her writ petition has categorically stated that as per her actual marks obtained in High School and Intermediate examinations, when the quality point marks are calculated, then it come to 70.42 whereas on the basis of incorrect entries made in the application form her quality point marks have been ascertained as 70.11. 12. Since petitioner due to incorrect entries made in her application form was at a disadvantageous stage in the merit list, as such in view of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020, she submitted a representation along with an affidavit to the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun, wherein she demonstrated that due to incorrect entries of marks in her application form she is at a disadvantageous position and further since on the basis of incorrect entries she has secured a place in the merit list, therefore in view of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 she is entitled to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 13. The District Basic Education Officer, Budaun considered the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and issued an appointment order on 11.12.2020 thereby petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher of a primary school. Petitioner pursuant to her appointment order dated 11.12.2020 submitted joining in Primary School Khiria Rahlu, Block Jagat, District Budaun on 28.1.2021 and started discharging duties attached to her post. 14. Petitioner pursuant to her appointment order dated 11.12.2020 submitted joining in Primary School Khiria Rahlu, Block Jagat, District Budaun on 28.1.2021 and started discharging duties attached to her post. 14. The District Basic Education Officer, Budaun after the appointment of the petitioner constituted a three-member committee for making inquiry in respect of candidates who have filled in their marks obtained in the examinations incorrectly and a notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.6.2021 whereby she was required to appear before the committee on 28.6.2021 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Budaun. Petitioner on 5.7.2021 appeared before the committee and submitted her reply wherein she categorically mentioned that on the basis of correct marks obtained by the petitioner in her High School and Intermediate examination, her quality point marks come to 70.42, whereas on the basis of incorrect entries made in the application form her quality point marks have been calculated as 70.11, therefore she is not at an advantageous stage due to incorrect entries made in the application form and therefore, her appointment stands protected in view of the provisions made in the government orders issued by the State Government. 15. The District Basic Education Officer, Budaun thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner on 23.8.2022 whereby petitioner was required to show cause as to why her services may not be terminated. Petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notices dated 23.8.2022 on 29.8.2022 wherein she categorically demonstrated that as per marks mentioned in the marksheets of the petitioner, her quality point marks come to 70.42, whereas due to incorrect entries made in the application form, her quality point marks have been ascertained as 70.11. Therefore, due to mistake committed by the petitioner she is not at an advantageous stage and therefore, her appointment stands protected in view of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and accordingly, notice issued against the petitioner is liable to be discharged. 16. Petitioner also approached to the District Magistrate, Budaun and raised her grievance, then the District Magistrate, Budaun constituted a committee under the chairmanship of City Magistrate, Budaun to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to submit a report. In the said committee, the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun was also a member. 16. Petitioner also approached to the District Magistrate, Budaun and raised her grievance, then the District Magistrate, Budaun constituted a committee under the chairmanship of City Magistrate, Budaun to look into the grievance of the petitioner and to submit a report. In the said committee, the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun was also a member. The committee headed by City Magistrate, Budaun has submitted a report to District Magistrate, Budaun on 23.2.2023 in which it has been found that petitioner due to incorrect entries made in her application form was at a disadvantageous stage and was entitled to continue in service. The relevant portion of the report dated 23.2.2023 is extracted as under:- 17. The District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has also written a letter on 29.3.2023 to Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj wherein he has categorically mentioned that on the basis of incorrect entries made by the petitioner in her application form she is not at all at an advantageous stage and therefore, adequate decision may be taken in the matter. The relevant portion of the letter dated 29.3.2023 is extracted as under:- 18. The District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has passed an order on 3.12.2022 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled with effect from the date of her initial appointment. The District Basic Education Officer, Budaun without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner has straightaway cancelled her appointment on the ground that she has made mistakes in filling up the application form and thereby has filled incorrect marks of High School and Intermediate examination and therefore, her appointment is liable to be cancelled. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that due to incorrect entries made by the petitioner in her application form for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 she is at a disadvantageous stage as if the correct marks would have been entered in the application form, then quality point marks of the petitioner would have been more than the quality point marks given to her on the basis of incorrect entries. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that the State Government itself issued Government Order on 4.12.2020 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that if on the basis of incorrect entries of marks in the application form, the candidate is at a disadvantageous stage, then the said candidate is entitled to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and in the case of the petitioner, it is patently manifest that on the basis of incorrect entries made by the petitioner in her application form regarding marks obtained in High School and Intermediate examinations, she is at a disadvantageous stage as on the basis of her incorrect entries her quality point marks have been assessed as 70.11, whereas her quality point marks on the basis of correct marks of High School and Intermediate examination come to 70.42. Therefore, the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner has committed a manifest error and the order dated 3.12.2022 is contrary to the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this court towards judgment and order dated 29.6.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.378 of 2021 (Rahul Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) and has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in categorical terms has provided that if due to incorrect entries of marks made by the candidate in application form, he is at an advantageous stage, then his appointment deserves to be cancelled but where the candidate due to incorrect entries of marks is not at an advantageous stage, then he is entitled to appointment. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the order dated 3.12.2022 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled, is illegal and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 21. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the order dated 3.12.2022 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled, is illegal and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also vehemently argued that the petitioner in response to the notice issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has submitted a comprehensive reply wherein she categorically demonstrated that due to incorrect entries of marks made in the application form petitioner is at a disadvantageous stage and therefore, her appointment stands protected in view of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 but the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun did not consider the said reply at all and straightaway has passed the order dated 3.12.2022 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled from the date of her initial appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the authority has not considered the reply of the employee and straightaway has cancelled his appointment, then the order cancelling appointment cannot sustain in the eyes of law. In the case of the petitioner, a bare perusal of the impugned order makes it crystal clear that reply of the petitioner has not been considered at all, therefore the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that the order dated 3.12.2022 whereby appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, cannot sustain in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed by this Court. 23. Per contra, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4 has argued that along with the application form guidelines for filling up the form were issued to the candidates and in the said guidelines, it was categorically provided that the candidates are required to fill up the information required in the application form correctly and if any mistake is committed by the candidates, then they will have to suffer as no opportunity will be given to correct the mistakes. Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4 has further argued that since petitioner has made incorrect entries in her application form in respect of marks obtained by her in High School and Intermediate examinations, therefore, she is not entitled to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and as such, the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun while passing the order dated 3.12.2022 thereby cancelling appointment of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment, has not committed any illegality. 24. Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4 has emphatically argued that on the basis of incorrect entries made by the petitioner with respect to marks obtained by her in High School examination, petitioner is at an advantageous stage as her percentage in High School examination has been taken as 90% whereas on the basis of actual CGPA her percentage comes to 87.4%. Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4 has further submitted that position of the petitioner on the basis of incorrect entries of marks has to be seen separately and in respect of High School examination she is at an advantageous stage, whereas on the basis of incorrect entries of marks made in the application form for Intermediate examination she is at a disadvantageous stage, therefore she is not liable to be given the protection of the provisions of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and therefore, the order dated 3.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4 has thus concluded her arguments and has submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed by this court. 26. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 27. I find that the petitioner in her High School examination has secured 9.2 CGPA and as per formula given in the marksheet of the petitioner, her percentage comes to 9.5 x 9.2 (CGPA) = 87.4%, whereas petitioner while filling up her application form has mentioned that she secured 9 marks out of 10 marks and thereby her percentage comes to 90%. 28. 28. I further find that the petitioner in her Intermediate examination has secured 360 marks out of total 500 marks and thereby her percentage of marks comes to 72%, whereas in the application form petitioner has incorrectly mentioned that she secured 331 marks out of total 500 marks, which comes to 66.2%. 29. The entry of High School marks in the application form of the petitioner puts her at an advantageous stage whereas incorrect entry of Intermediate marks in her application form puts her at a disadvantageous stage. 30. It is noteworthy that quality point marks on the basis of which selection is made for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher is based on percentage of marks mentioned in the application form in High School examination, Intermediate examination and marks obtained in Training Course. If on the basis of incorrect entries made by the petitioner in her application form her quality point marks are determined, then the same comes to 70.11 whereas if on the basis of actual marks obtained by the petitioner in her High School and Intermediate examination her quality point marks are determined, then the same comes to 70.42. Thus, it is patently manifest that petitioner by making incorrect entries in her application form, has put her at a disadvantageous position. 31. The State Government for dealing with the incorrect entries of marks made in the application forms by the candidates in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 has issued Government Order dated 4.12.2020. The essence of Government Order dated 4.12.2020 is very apparent that the State Government has provided that if the candidate due to incorrect entries of marks made in the application form is not at an advantageous stage and on the basis of such incorrect entries candidate has been selected, then the said candidate should not be denied appointment. The relevant portion of Government Order dated 4.12.2020 is extracted as under:- 32. The intention of the State Government in issuing a Government Order dated 4.12.2020 can be very easily gathered from a bare look of the provisions made in the said Government Order. The relevant portion of Government Order dated 4.12.2020 is extracted as under:- 32. The intention of the State Government in issuing a Government Order dated 4.12.2020 can be very easily gathered from a bare look of the provisions made in the said Government Order. The intention of the State Government in issuing Government Order dated 4.12.2020 is crystal clear that if while entering marks of different examinations by the candidate in the application form, any mistake is committed but by that mistake he is not at an advantageous stage and on the basis of incorrect entries he has secured selection, then his selection should not be disturbed due to said mistake. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 29.6.2021 rendered in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) has considered the purport of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and it has been held that where due to incorrect entries of marks made in the application form candidate is not at an advantageous stage, then he is entitled to protection of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and his selection cannot be disturbed, whereas if the candidate on the basis of incorrect entries of marks made in the application form is at an advantageous stage, then his appointment is liable to be cancelled. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) is extracted as under:- "7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form. These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above. 8. It must however be stated here that the authorities are not strictly following the intent of the G.O. and the Circular. For example, the Office Order dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi, shows cancellation of the candidature of one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4, though the projection of marks by way of mistake by said candidate was to his disadvantage. Logically, said candidate would be entitled to have his candidature considered and reckoned at the disadvantaged level. The record shows that even with such disadvantage, the candidate was entitled to be selected. 34. This court in its judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 rendered in Writ-A No.17750 of 2022 (Nandini Baranwal vs. State of U.P. and others) has dealt with the issue identical to that of the issue of the present writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 is extracted as under:- “Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that the issue regarding mistakes committed by the candidates and the consequences as also the validity of the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 and 05.03.2021 were considered by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 titled as Jyoti Yadav and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others decided on 8th April, 2021 and in Writ Petition (Civil No. 378 of 2021 titled as Rahul Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others decided on 29th June, 2021. The Apex Court while upholding the validity of the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 and 05.03.2021 observed as under: "We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O and Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigor of the G.O. and the circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form." After the decision of the Apex Court referred to herein above the issue was considered by a Special Appellate Bench of this Court in a bunch of Special Appeals leading amongst them being Special Appeal Defective No. 302 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others). The Special Appellate Bench while discussing the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav and Rahul Kumar (Supra) found that the issue had not been examined by the competent authority in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments interpreting the Government Orders dated 4.12.2022 and 05.03.2021 and that the matter needed to be re-examined. The impugned orders rejecting the candidatures were accordingly set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority of the district concerned for re-examination in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and to take a final decision thereon. The impugned orders rejecting the candidatures were accordingly set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority of the district concerned for re-examination in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and to take a final decision thereon. The Court has gone through the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) as also the case of Rahul Kumar (Supra) and finds that the petitioner by committing mistake in filling up her online application form by stating 384 out of 500 and 528 marks out of 700 instead of 527 out of 700 in graduation had put herself at a disadvantageous position by 0.006 quality point marks however it would not alter her merit position in the select list. Consequently her appointment as Assistant Teacher was not liable to be cancelled. In view of the above, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalaya, Miyanganj Pracheen, Badaun is set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question and release all arrears of salary with effect from her date of initial appointment till date and continue to pay the petitioner her salary regularly month to month as and when the same falls due.” 35. When the case of the petitioner is seen in the light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra), I find that since petitioner due to incorrect entries of marks made in her application form is not at an advantageous stage rather she is at a disadvantageous stage, as such she is entitled to the protection of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and her appointment is not liable to be disturbed. 36. 36. So far as the argument of Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4 that petitioner on the basis of incorrect entries made in respect of marks of High School examination is at an advantageous stage and in respect of incorrect entries made for Intermediate examination she is at a disadvantageous stage, therefore District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has rightly cancelled her appointment, is concerned, I find that Government Order dated 4.12.2020 nowhere provides that advantageous or disadvantageous position of a candidate will be ascertained in respect of marks obtained in individual examination rather Government Order dated 4.12.2020, in unequivocal terms, provides that if on the basis of incorrect entries of marks candidate is at an advantageous stage, his appointment shall be cancelled. Therefore, it is apparent that incorrect entries are to be taken together and thereafter position of the candidate is to be ascertained as to whether petitioner due to incorrect entries has gained any advantage or is at a disadvantageous position. In the case in hand, facts of the case clearly demonstrate that when incorrect entries made in respect of High School examination marks and in respect of Intermediate examination marks are taken together and thereby quality point marks are evaluated, petitioner due to her mistakes is definitely at a disadvantageous stage and therefore, she is entitled to protection of provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and thus, the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 3.12.2022 has committed an illegality. 37. I also find that the petitioner in response to the notice issued to her by the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has submitted a detailed reply on 29.8.2022 but the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun while passing the order dated 3.12.2022 whereby petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled, has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner at all. From a bare perusal of the order dated 3.12.2022 it clearly comes out that the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun in respect of reply submitted by the petitioner has only said that the reply has not been found satisfactory. 38. From a bare perusal of the order dated 3.12.2022 it clearly comes out that the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun in respect of reply submitted by the petitioner has only said that the reply has not been found satisfactory. 38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catana of judgments has categorically laid down the law that once reply is submitted to the show cause notice, then the authority while passing the final order must consider each and every point of the reply and if the reply is ignored cursorily by saying that the same is not found satisfactory, then the final order passed in the matter cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 39. In the case of the petitioner, District Basic Education Officer, Budaun while passing the order dated 3.12.2022 has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner at all and therefore, on this count also the order dated 3.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 40. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Budaun cancelling the appointment of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment, is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of her appointment order dated 11.12.2020 and are also directed to pay her salary regularly.