JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No.12806/2017) Learned counsel for the respondent does not fairly oppose the delay in preferring the present special appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed, and the delay of 147 days in preferring the special appeal is, hereby, condoned. Special Appeal No.798 of 2017 3. The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 12.04.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.681 of 2016 preferred by the respondent. The impugned order is short, and the same reads as follows:- “Petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher Primary (Arts). He belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that he has not mentioned his subject code. The petitioner has passed B.Ed. examination in the year 2007 and T.E.T.-I in the year 2011. His quality points are 48.7178. The mistake committed by the petitioner was not grave in nature. The respondents knew that the petitioner has submitted the application for the post of Assistant Teacher Primary (Arts). The application has been rejected by adopting a very technical approach. Clause 7(Jha) of the advertisement was required to be construed liberally, more particularly, when the respondents were dealing with the applications received from the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher Primary (Arts), within a period of ten weeks from today with all consequential benefits.” 4. The submission of learned Standing Counsel for the appellants is that, in the advertisement issued by the appellants, as well as in the application form, it had repeatedly and clearly been stated that incomplete application forms will be liable to be rejected. In this regard, attention has been drawn to Paragraph Nos. 7¼x½ vkSj ¼>½ of the advertisement. The submission of learned Standing Counsel for the appellants is that, in the advertisement issued by the appellants, as well as in the application form, it had repeatedly and clearly been stated that incomplete application forms will be liable to be rejected. In this regard, attention has been drawn to Paragraph Nos. 7¼x½ vkSj ¼>½ of the advertisement. It reads as follows:- ^^¼x½ vkosnu i= dk Ák#i mRrjk[kaM fo|ky;h f'k{kk ds osc lkbV www.schooleducation.uk.in ij mi;ksxkFkZ gksxk] ftls ¼,&4 lkbt½ ds isij ij MkmuyksM fd;k tk ldsxkA lekpkj i= esa Ádkf'kr foKfIr ls Hkh vkosnu i= dk Ák#i ÁkIr fd;k tk ldsxkA vfHk;kFkhZ fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ds lkFk fu/kkZfjr Ák#i ij viuk vkosnu i= iathd`r Mkd&LihM iksLV ls jkT; 'kSf{kd vuqlU/kku ,oa Áf'k{k.k ifj"kn~ mRrjk[kaM] jktho xka/kh uoksn; fo|ky; ifjlj] uuwj[ksM+k] nsgjknwu ds irs ij bl Ádkj Ásf"kr djsaxs fd izR;sd n'kk esa vkosnu i= vafre frfFk 05 ekpZ] 2016 ds lka; 5-00 cts rd dk;kZy; esa ÁkIr gks tk;sA vkosnu i= ds fyQkQs ds Åij Li"V #i ls lgk;d v/;kid ÁkFkfed vFkok lgk;d v/;kid ÁkFkfed ¼mnwZ½ gsrq vkosnu i= oxkZ ¼foKku@foKkusRrj½ rFkk tkfr o {kSfrt vkj{k.k dksM dks vko';d vafdr fd;k tk;sA fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk ¼05 ekpZ 2016½ ,oa le;kok/k ¼lk;a 5-00 cts rd½ ds i'pkr~ ÁkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij fdlh Hkh n'kk esa fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA Mkd foyEHk ds fy, foHkkx dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha gksxhA lk/kkj.k Mkd@dksfj;j@nLrh vkosnu i= fdlh Hkh n'kk esa Lohdkj ugha gksaxsA vkosnu i= esa viw.kZ Áfof"V ,oa okafNr Áek.k i= dh Áekf.kr Nk;kÁfr layXu u gksus ij vkosnu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA ¼>½ vkosnu i= dh =qfViw.kZ vadukvksa gsrq vfHk;kFkhZ Lo;a mRrjnk;h gksxk =qfViw.kZ] vLi"V ,oa viw.kZ vkosnu i= fujLr dj fn, tk;sxsaA** 5. Even in the application form, it was again informed to all the candidates to carefully fill their forms, as incomplete application forms were liable to be rejected. Despite the same, the respondent failed to disclose the subject code, i.e. fo"k; oxZ] against Column No.9 of the application form. He further submits that the appellants had filed the counter- affidavit, disclosing in Paragraph No.9 that the last selected candidate in ‘Arts’ subject belonging to the Scheduled Caste category had secured 58.18 quality points, whereas, admittedly, the respondent had obtained only 48.7178 quality points. Therefore, in any event, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Arts). 6. Therefore, in any event, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Arts). 6. We have heard learned counsels. 7. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted. In matters of public employment or competition for educational courses, where a very large number of candidates participate, it is absolutely essential that the candidates fill the application forms in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. It was for the respondent-writ petitioner to disclose the subject code, in respect whereof, he was offering his candidature. The appellants could not have been left to fill up the said lacuna. The respondent had failed to disclose that he was making his application for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Arts). The approach of the appellants cannot be described as technical, as observed by the learned Single Judge. The adoption of the reasoning provided by the learned Single Judge would play havoc with the public examinations and recruitment processes, if accepted. We, therefore, reject the reasoning contained in the impugned order. 8. We also find that the learned Single Judge has not looked at the stand of the respondents-appellants in their counter-affidavit, wherein they disclose that the cut-off quality points for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) (Arts) was 58.18 quality points, whereas, the respondent-writ petitioner secured only 48.7178 quality points. Had this fact been noticed, there would have been no occasion to issue any direction to the appellants. 9. In these circumstances, we allow the present special appeal, and set-aside the impugned order. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.