JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.-Heard Shri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The instant intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2024 (Rajbanshi v. State of U.P. and others). For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 29.3.2024 is reproduced as under : ''…..12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 13. In present case, undisputedly, petitioner was not careful in disclosing her marks in online form and has wrongly mentioned marks obtained in Graduation and BTC. 14. Undisputedly, it is not a case of the petitioner that subsequently her marks were changed after scrutiny, re-evaluation or back paper by the University or by issuing authority on its own. 15. In Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (supra) a Division Bench has followed Jyoti Yadav (supra) a judgment passed by Supreme Court where above referred Government Orders were upheld and Division Bench has specifically directed that Government Orders should be strictly followed. Supreme Court as well as Division Bench has not held that even candidate who does not fall within ambit of aforesaid Government Orders and only considering that despite mistakes committed they were in disadvantageous position, they may not be terminated from service. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of aforesaid Government Orders. 17. For the sake of argument, the submissions of counsel for petitioner in regard to 'disadvantageous position' is considered, still it would not be helpful for her, as though she has mentioned less marks as obtained in BTC, but she has disclosed more marks than she actually obtained in her Graduation course, therefore, her quality marks would vary. There is no material, except a vague submission that in case, the petitioner had submitted correct marks, she would be in an advantageous position. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find further merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner's case is squarely covered by Pooja Gupta (supra) against her. There is no material, except a vague submission that in case, the petitioner had submitted correct marks, she would be in an advantageous position. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find further merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner's case is squarely covered by Pooja Gupta (supra) against her. I, therefore, don't find that there is any reason to take a different view from Pooja Gupta (supra). 19. There is no merit in present writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.'' FACTS 3. The facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below. 4. The Examination Regulatory Authority, Primary and Secondary Education, Prayagraj published an advertisement for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 (ATRE, 2019) inviting applications from eligible candidates for making appointments on 69,000 post of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj (Board). It is contended that pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had also applied for the post of Assistant Teacher under the category of OBC/Female/Arts. However, while filling up the online application form, certain mistakes were committed by her. In the said application form, the petitioner had filled up the marks obtained in BTC as 1116 in theory out of 1475 total marks, whereas she has actually obtained 1131 marks. Further she had filled up 629 marks in graduation out of 1200 marks, whereas she had actually obtained 624 marks. It is contended that the petitioner belongs to rural background and this mistake was committed as internet facility is generally not available in the village. The form was filled up through Cyber Cafe operator and generally there remains huge crowd of the candidates. Admittedly, the petitioner-appellant was declared successful for appointment to the post of Asstt. Teacher in Primary School of District Mathura. In the select list prepared by the Board, out of 106 selected candidates the petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 54 with Registration No. 0400085991. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2021 on the ground of difference of marks in view of the Government Order dated 5.3.2021. Teacher in Primary School of District Mathura. In the select list prepared by the Board, out of 106 selected candidates the petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 54 with Registration No. 0400085991. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2021 on the ground of difference of marks in view of the Government Order dated 5.3.2021. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2022 (Rajbanshi v. State of U.P. and others) with following prayers : ''i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher OBC/Female/Arts as per the aforesaid advertisement and filled up form. iii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner.'' 5. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.5.2022, relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.4.2022 rendered in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2022(7) ADJ 635 (DB) with following observations : ''….In view of the above the order dated 22.7.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mathura is quashed. This petition is disposed directing the Basic Education Officer, Mathura to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and as per Division Bench judgment of this Court within six weeks from today.'' 6. Consequently, the respondent No. 4-District Basic Education Officer (BSA), Mathura had issued a letter dated 24.8.2022 and directed the petitioner to appear in his office alongwith her submission/evidences. It is contended that in response to the aforesaid notice the petitioner had appeared before respondent No. 4 and submitted her documents but the respondents have not taken any decision. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7820 of 2022 (Rajbanshi v. Deewan Singh, District Basic Education Officer), which was disposed of on 20.12.2022 according three months' further time to the respondents to comply with the Writ Court Order. 7. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7820 of 2022 (Rajbanshi v. Deewan Singh, District Basic Education Officer), which was disposed of on 20.12.2022 according three months' further time to the respondents to comply with the Writ Court Order. 7. It appears that even though the aforesaid order was duly served upon the respondents but no decision was taken. Such situation impelled the petitioner to once again approach this Court by way of preferring second Contempt Application No. 6100 of 2023 (Rajbanshi v. Sunil Dutt, District Basic Education Officer, Mathura) in which notices were issued to the respondents on 25.8.2023. It is contended that in response to the aforesaid order, the BSA, Mathura had passed the order impugned dated 28.11.2023 ignoring the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2022 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2024 was preferred which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on 29.3.2024 leading to filing of present appeal before this Court. 8. In the instant recruitment process the State Government had issued Government Orders dated 4.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020. These Government Orders deal with the situation, wherein the applicant had committed mistakes while filling up the online application form. In the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 it was provided that if the marks filled up by the candidates in the application form is less than actual marks shown in the marksheet, then affidavit be taken from said candidates 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. The Government Order dated 4.12.2020 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 marksheet, affidavit be taken from the said candidate that on the basis of higher marks, he will not claim higher position in the select list and thereafter he may be issued appointment letter. 9. In the instant matter, the petitioner filled up the marks as 1116/1475 in BTC instead of actual marks 1131 i.e. 15 less marks than actual. She further filled 629/1200 marks in BA (Graduation) instead of actual 624 i.e. 5 more marks than actual. 9. In the instant matter, the petitioner filled up the marks as 1116/1475 in BTC instead of actual marks 1131 i.e. 15 less marks than actual. She further filled 629/1200 marks in BA (Graduation) instead of actual 624 i.e. 5 more marks than actual. Thus it is patently manifest that due to mistake committed by the petitioner, she was at disadvantageous stage of (15-5=10)10 marks. Since due to incorrect entries in her application form, the petitioner was at disadvantageous stage in the merit list, in view of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020, she had submitted her claim alongwith the affidavit to the BSA, Mathura, wherein she demonstrated that due to incorrect entries of marks in her application form, she was infact at disadvantageous position and further since on the basis of incorrect entries even though she had secured place in the merit list, therefore, in view of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 she was entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. However, the BSA, Mathura had rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 28.11.2023 (impugned in the writ petition). 10. It appears that in earlier round of litigation learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2022 on 23.5.2022 relying on the judgment of Division Bench in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others (Supra) and set aside the earlier order dated 22.7.2021 passed by BSA, Mathura. The BSA, Mathura was also directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others (Supra). In response to the Writ Court order, notice was served upon the appellant-petitioner, which was duly responded by the petitioner. Reliance was also placed upon the Government Order dated 4.12.2020. It is alleged that BSA, Mathura without considering the mandate of learned Single Judge and without appreciating the Division Bench mandate in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others (Supra) had rejected the claim of the petitioner on 28.11.2023 on the ground that she had committed mistake in filling up the application form and thereby filled up incorrect marks of graduation and BTC, therefore, her candidature was liable to be rejected in the light of the Government Order dated 5.3.2021. Learned Single Judge has approved the order dated 28.11.2023 vide the judgment and order impugned, which has been challenged in this intra Court appeal. Learned Single Judge has approved the order dated 28.11.2023 vide the judgment and order impugned, which has been challenged in this intra Court appeal. ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT 11. Shri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant vehemently contended that learned Single Judge had erred in law while dismissing the writ petition, even though issues concerning such mistakes committed by the candidates and consequences were dealt with by certain Government Orders and Circulars. The Government Order dated 4.12.2020 dealt with several discrepancies, which could possibly be crept in while filling up the online application form by the candidates. In the instant matter, point No. 2 of the said Government Order is relevant, which deals with discrepancy in the marks obtained and total marks of High School, Intermediate, Graduation, Training and to the total marks and marks obtained received from the excel sheet of the candidate. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav and another v. The State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 dated 8.4.2021 and Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(s).378/2021 dated 29.6.2021. In Jyoti Yadav (Supra), the Apex Court has considered the Government Orders dated 4.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020. In Rahul Kumar (Supra), in para 3 the Apex Court had considered the Government Order dated 4.12.2020. For ready reference, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Rahul Kumar (Supra) are reproduced as under : ''…..3. Government Order dated 4.12.2020 ('the G.O.', for short) dealt with as many as 21 points of discrepancies which could possibly have crept in while filling up online application forms by the candidates. Point No. 2 of said G.O. is of some relevance and is being quoted hereunder for facility: ''Point No. 2: Discrepancy in the Marks obtained and Total marks of High School, Intermediate, Graduation, Training and to the total marks and marks obtained received from the excel sheet of the candidate. In relation to the above type of discrepancies following action to be taken has been decided : 1. If a candidate has filed less marks than marks obtained, then from such candidate sufficient documentary evidence for filing less marks should be sought. In relation to the above type of discrepancies following action to be taken has been decided : 1. If a candidate has filed less marks than marks obtained, then from such candidate sufficient documentary evidence for filing less marks should be sought. After receiving such relevant basis and being satisfied therefrom a declaration should be sought from the candidate that he is satisfied from the selection at less marks as filled by him and that in future he will not demand a change in merit on more marks. Because there will not be any change in the merit, consequently appointment letter should be issued to the candidate. 2. If a candidate has filled more Total marks than the Total marks in the original mark-sheet, then from such candidate sufficient documentary evidence for filing more Total marks should be sought. After receiving such whole basis and being satisfied therefrom a declaration should be sought from the candidate that he is satisfied from the selection at total marks and that in future he will not demand a change in merit on original/less marks. Because there will not be any change in the merit, consequently appointment letter should be issued to the candidate. 3. Such candidates who in their in the application form under academic qualification have filled more marks than marks obtained, in relation to this it is notable that because a merit is decided on the marks obtained mentioned by the candidate hence if the candidate is selected on the original less marks then the merit will be changed. Resultantly whole merit list will be changed. The intention behind filling more marks than obtained can be for selection anyhow, in addition to the above, order dated 18.11.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentions that the appointment process should be completed on the basis of the Merit List published earlier. In respect of the above mentioned order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court any type of change in the Selection list/Merit List will not be suitable. Resultantly selection of such candidates is to be cancelled. 4. In respect of the above mentioned order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court any type of change in the Selection list/Merit List will not be suitable. Resultantly selection of such candidates is to be cancelled. 4. Such candidates who in their application form under academic qualification have filled lesser Total marks than the original Total marks, in relation to this it is notable that because a merit is decided on the marks obtained mentioned by the candidate hence if the candidate is selected on the original Total marks then the merit will be changed. Resultantly whole merit list will be changed. The intention behind filing less marks than original total marks can be for selection anyhow, in addition to the above, order dated 18.11.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentions that the appointment process should be completed on the basis of the Merit List published earlier. In respect of the above mentioned order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court any type of change in the Selection list/Merit List will not be suitable. Resultantly selection of such candidates is to be cancelled.'' (a) Thus, under Para 1 of the aforesaid Point No. 2, if a candidate had filled lesser marks than what he had actually obtained, a declaration would be sought from such candidate that he would be satisfied with such lesser marks filled up by him and that he would not demand any change in merit in future. (b) Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Point No. 2 dealt with cases where total marks available for the examination were filled up by the candidate wrongly at an increased level. Even in such cases, a declaration in terms of paragraph 2 could be sought from the candidate. (c) An illustration may clarify the applicability of these paragraphs. If a candidate had obtained 400 marks out of total marks of 500 (i.e. 80%) and by mistake had filled up 390 marks instead of 400 marks as obtained by him (i.e. 78%), such cases would be covered under paragraph 1 of the G.O. At the same time, if instead of 500, the candidate had filled up 600 being the total marks for the examination (the resultant effect being, his percentage would be 66.66%), the case would be considered under paragraph 2 of the G.O. In both the cases, the candidate had projected himself at a disadvantage than his rightful entitlement. Thus, wherever a candidate would be at a disadvantage, the appropriate declaration could be taken from the candidate and his candidature could still be considered at such disadvantaged level as projected; the reason being that the candidate could never be said to have secured any gain or benefit, if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed. 4. Subsequently, the State issued Government Circular dated 5.3.2021 ('the Circular', for short) which further elaborated paragraph 1 of Point No. 2 as stated above. The relevant portion of the Circular was to the following effect: ''2. In continuation of the recommendations dated 13-12-2020 of the Committee which were brought to your notice vide the letter dated 15-01-2021, the opinion of the legal and personnel department were sought. On the basis of the recommendations of the legal and personnel department, the following have been decided to be acted upon : (1) In context of Recommendations of the Committee at Point-1 in reference to more marks mentioned : The candidates who has submitted the application form on the basis of certificate/marksheet available with them and had mentioned more marks but the marks were subsequently changed after scrutiny/re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority on its own, those candidates cannot be held to be responsible for changing or wrongfully mentioning marks in the application form as they did not have any option but to fill the marks mentioned in the certificate/marksheet available with them at the relevant time of filing-up of the application form. Such candidate, if they have obtained more quality points than the last candidate selected in the category in the district, then he/shall be given the appointment letter in that district. If any such candidate has lesser quality points than the last candidate selected in a particular district but more than the quality point than the last selected candidate in that category in the state list then the details of such candidate shall be provided to the administration by the Director, Basic Education. Further actions will be taken in that regard by the administration. Further actions will be taken in that regard by the administration. Where a candidate, without any documentary basis, has mentioned more marks than what he has obtained or has mentioned less maximum marks than what the actual was, his/her selection/candidature shall be cancelled.'' (a) According to the Circular, wherever more marks were claimed as a result of subsequent changes after scrutiny/re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority ''on its own'', the candidate could not be held responsible for discrepancy or wrongful mentioning of the marks and a benefit was therefore sought to be conferred upon the candidate which was not contemplated by the G.O. (b) The last part of the quoted portion of the Circular emphasized that where a candidate had mentioned ''more marks'' than what he had actually obtained or had mentioned ''lesser maximum marks'' than what the total marks for the examination in question were allocated, the selection/candidature of the candidate would stand cancelled. (c) The underlying principle, therefore, is quite evident that by quoting more marks than what the candidate had actually obtained or by specifying lesser total marks for the examination than those allocated for the examination, the candidate would essentially be claiming an advantage to which he was not entitled, in case the discrepancy were to go unnoticed. 5. The present petitions arise from cases where all the candidates had committed mistakes while filling up their application forms. Some had projected themselves at a disadvantaged position as explained above while in some cases the situation was to the contrary. ……... 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 28.3.2021 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…….'' 12. While considering the judgment in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra), the Apex Court has considered the Government Orders dated 4.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020 as well as the communication dated 5.3.2021. In para 9 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed, ''since most of the petitioners in the instant cases had filled up more marks than what they had actually secured, they apprehend that their cases will now be dealt with in terms of the communication dated 5.3.2021 and their candidature may be rejected.'' 13. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the instant matter is to be seen in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul Kumar (Supra). 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that the Authority had not at all considered the reply in response to the leave accorded by the competent Court and the Authority had straightaway cancelled the candidature of the petitioner, hence, the order cancelling the appointment cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that the Authority had not at all considered the reply in response to the leave accorded by the competent Court and the Authority had straightaway cancelled the candidature of the petitioner, hence, the order cancelling the appointment cannot sustain in the eyes of law. In the instant case, from bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the reply of the petitioner has not been considered while passing the order dated 28.11.2023 and the Authority has not even taken care of the judgment in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra), whereas in the earlier writ petition while relegating the matter the Court had observed that the claim of the petitioner is to be seen in the light of the judgment passed in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra). He assertively argued that in the instant matter the claim of the petitioner is fully sustainable in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Rahul Kumar (Supra) as well as the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra), which has attained finality. Admittedly the petitioner-appellant was at disadvantageous stage and she is liable to be accorded benefit in the light of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020. Therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from various infirmities and liable to be set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has lastly placed reliance upon the judgment in Garima Vashishtha v. State of U.P. and others, 2023(12) ADJ 301 , wherein learned Single Judge has considered the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 as well as the ratio propounded by the Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) and Rahul Kumar (Supra) and held that the petitioner by committing mistake in filling up the online form had put herself at disadvantageous position, hence her appointment as Assistant Teacher could not be cancelled. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF STATE RESPONDENTS 16. Per contra, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently argued that alongwith the application form, guidelines for filling up the form were also issued, whereby every candidate was required to fill up the information as required in the application form correctly and if any mistake is committed by the candidate, then in such eventuality no opportunity will be given to rectify such error. 17. 17. He assertively submitted that it is undisputed that the petitioner had made incorrect entries in her application form in respect of marks obtained in Graduation and BTC. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra). He submitted that in view of the communication dated 5.3.2021 the first category of candidates is that who had submitted the application form on the basis of certificate/marksheet available with them and had mentioned more marks but the marks were subsequently changed after scrutiny/re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority on its own, those candidates cannot be held to be responsible for changing or wrongfully mentioning marks in the application form as they did not have any option but to fill the marks mentioned in the certificate/marksheet available with them at the relevant time of filling up of the application form. He stated that admittedly the claim of the petitioner does not fall in the first category. 18. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that infact the petitioner falls in the second category, which provided that the candidates, who have filled up incorrect marks, their candidature is automatically rejected. To substantiate his arguments, he has placed reliance on paragraphs 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra), which for ready reference, are reproduced as under : ''……..7. It must be mentioned that Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1308 of 2020 and 1422 of 2020 were disposed of by this Court on 13.1.2021 after noting three Office Memoranda issued by the State Government on 4.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020. These Memoranda dealt with situations where the applicants had committed mistakes while filling up their online applicant forms. Office Memorandum dated 10.12.2020 stated that all matters coming under Para 3 of Point No. 2 would be placed before the Government alongwith the report of the Basic Education Officer. In view of these Memoranda, the writ petitions were disposed of directing the concerned authorities to place those cases for consideration in terms of Office Memoranda dated 4.10.2020 and 10.12.2020. 8. Thereafter, by Communication dated 5.3.2021, a further decision was taken with respect to matters dealt with by the Memoranda and it was decided: ''(1) In context of Recommendations of the Committee at Point-1 in reference to more marks mentioned : The candidates who had submitted the application form on 4 W P (C) No. 322/2021 etc. 8. Thereafter, by Communication dated 5.3.2021, a further decision was taken with respect to matters dealt with by the Memoranda and it was decided: ''(1) In context of Recommendations of the Committee at Point-1 in reference to more marks mentioned : The candidates who had submitted the application form on 4 W P (C) No. 322/2021 etc. the basis of certificate/marksheet available with them and had mentioned more marks but the marks were subsequently changed after scrutiny/re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority on its own, those candidates cannot be held to be responsible for changing or wrongfully mentioning marks in the application form as they did not have any option but to fill the marks mentioned in the certificate/marksheet available with them at the relevant time of filling-up of the application form. Such candidates, if they have obtained more quality points than the last candidate selected in the category in the district, then he/she shall be given the appointment letter in that district. If any such candidate has lesser quality points than the last candidate selected in a particular district but more than the quality point than the last selected candidate in that category in the state list then the details of such candidate shall be provided to the administration by the Director, Basic Education. Further actions will be taken in that regard by the administration. Where a candidate, without any documentary basis, has mentioned more marks than what he has obtained or has mentioned more maximum marks than what the actual was, his/her selection/candidature shall be cancelled.'' ……. 13. The stand of the State is that every candidate was obliged to fill up the relevant entries in the application form correctly and specially those pertaining to the marks obtained by the candidates in various examinations with due care and caution. The information given in the application form would reflect in quality points of the candidates and have a direct bearing on the merit list. That would in turn, not only determine the inter se merit but afford guidance to cater to the choices indicated by the candidates. The declaration which was spelt out in the Guidelines and repeated in the Advertisement, had clearly put every candidate to notice that if there be any mistake in the application form, the candidate could not claim any right to have those mistakes rectified. 14. The declaration which was spelt out in the Guidelines and repeated in the Advertisement, had clearly put every candidate to notice that if there be any mistake in the application form, the candidate could not claim any right to have those mistakes rectified. 14. Wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater than what they actually deserved, according to the Communication dated 5.3.2021, their candidature would stand rejected. However, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at a disadvantage as against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made by said Communication. The reason for treating these two categories of candidates differently cannot thus be called irrational. In the first case, going by the marks or information given in the application form the candidate would secure undue advantage whereas in the latter category of cases the candidate would actually be at a disadvantage or where the variation could not be attributed to them. The candidates in the latter category have been given a respite from the rigor of the declaration. The classification is clear and precise. Those who could possibly walk away with the undue advantage will continue to be governed by the terms of the declaration, while the other category would be given some relief. 15. Having considered all the rival submissions, in our view, the Communication dated 5.3.2021 made a rational distinction and was designed to achieve a purpose of securing fairness while maintaining the integrity of the entire process. If, at every juncture, any mistakes by the candidates were to be addressed and considered at individual level, the entire process of selection may stand delayed and put to prejudice. In order to have definiteness in the matter, certain norms had to be prescribed and prescription of such stipulations cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational. Every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the Guidelines and the Advertisement…….'' 19. He further submitted that while dealing with the communication dated 5.3.2021, Hon'ble Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) had held that the Communication dated 5.3.2021 made a rational distinction and was designed to achieve a purpose of securing fairness while maintaining the integrity of the entire process. Even every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the guidelines and the advertisement. Even every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the guidelines and the advertisement. He submitted that while approving the communication dated 5.3.2021 the Apex Court has also proceeded to observe that the petitioners must be held to be governed fully by the rigors of the said communication. He submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and also considered the judgments in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) and Rahul Kumar (Supra) and as such no case for interference is made out and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 4 and 5 20. On the other hand, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has also vehemently opposed the special appeal and corroborated the arguments advanced by Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel. She further submitted that if there is any error in filling up the form by candidate, he/she cannot be allowed to make any correction in view of Clause 2 of the communication dated 5.3.2021, which clearly provides that in such situation, the candidature is required to be cancelled. The candidate could be given benefit only in the light of the first category of communication dated 5.3.2021, wherein the applicant had submitted the application form on the basis of certificate/marksheet available with them and had mentioned more marks but the marks were subsequently changed after scrutiny/re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority on its own, those candidates cannot be held to be responsible for changing or wrongfully mentioning marks in the application form as they did not have any option but to fill the marks mentioned in the certificate/marksheet available with them at the relevant time of filling up of the application form. 21. She further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge, which is well considered and liable to be approved. She further submitted that learned Single Judge has assigned proper reasoning for denying the relief to the appellant and thus the present appeal merits dismissal. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar, respectfully considered the judgments cited by the learned counsels and have gone through the impugned judgment and material placed on record. 23. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar, respectfully considered the judgments cited by the learned counsels and have gone through the impugned judgment and material placed on record. 23. This much is apparent that pursuant to the advertisement in question, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher under the category of OBC/Female/Arts. However, while filling up the online application form, certain mistakes were committed by her. In the said application form, the petitioner had filled up the marks obtained in BTC as 1116 in theory out of 1475 total marks, whereas she has actually obtained 1131 marks. Further she had filled up 629 marks in graduation out of 1200 marks, whereas she had actually obtained 624 marks. Thus it is patently manifest that the petitioner by making incorrect entries in her application form has put herself at disadvantageous position. We find that the State Government had initially come across with the ground reality while dealing with the incorrect entries of marks made by the candidates at the time of filling up the form in ATRE, 2019. To rectify the said discrepancy and considering equity in favour of the candidates initially the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 was issued. We find that the object of issuance of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 was to provide reprieve to the candidates, who had made incorrect entries of marks in the application form and were infact not at advantageous position and on the basis of such incorrect entries they have been selected. In such situation their candidature should not be rejected. The relevant clause of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 reads as under : 24. We have carefully perused the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and find that the intention of the Government in issuing the said Government Order is that if while entering marks of different examinations by the candidate in the application form, any mistake is committed but by that mistake he/she is not at an advantageous stage and on the basis of incorrect entries he/she has secured selection, then his/her selection should not be disturbed due to said mistake. 25. It is gainful to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the judgment in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) has taken note of Government Orders dated 4.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020 as well as subsequent communication dated 5.3.2021. 25. It is gainful to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the judgment in Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) has taken note of Government Orders dated 4.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020 as well as subsequent communication dated 5.3.2021. In para 9 of the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court had observed, ''since most of the petitioners in the instant cases had filled up more marks than what they had actually secured, they apprehend that their cases will now be dealt with in terms of the communication dated 5.3.2021 and their candidature may be rejected.'' In the said circumstances, the candidates had challenged the communication dated 5.3.2021 and mandamus was sought before Supreme Court for a direction to respondents to rectify the mistake committed by the petitioners. In such situation, Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by Jyoti Yadav and another (Supra) with the observations quoted earlier. 26. For ready reference, the communication dated 5.3.2021 is reproduced as under : 27. Later on the Apex Court in Rahul Kumar (Supra) has considered the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and communication/circular dated 5.3.2021 and disposed of the writ petition with following observations : ''….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 28.3.2021 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. 9. We have given this illustration only by way of an example. The authorities shall do well to consider every such order issued by them and cause appropriate corrections or modifications in the light of conclusions stated above. 10. With these clarifications, the instant petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, including miscellaneous application also stand disposed of.'' (Emphasis supplied) 28. We find that in Rahul Kumar (Supra) the Apex Court has taken note of Point No. 2 of the G.O. dated 4.12.2020, which is also relevant in the instant matter. 29. 10. With these clarifications, the instant petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, including miscellaneous application also stand disposed of.'' (Emphasis supplied) 28. We find that in Rahul Kumar (Supra) the Apex Court has taken note of Point No. 2 of the G.O. dated 4.12.2020, which is also relevant in the instant matter. 29. The first part of Point No. 2 provides that if a candidate had filled lesser marks than what he had actually obtained, declaration would be sought from such candidate that he would be satisfied with such lesser marks filled up by him and he would not demand any change in merit in future. 30. The second part of Point No. 2 deals with cases, where a candidate has filled more total marks than the total marks in the original mark sheet. Even in such case declaration in terms of paragraph 2 could be sought from the candidates. Hon'ble Apex Court in para 3 (c) of Rahul Kumar (Supra) has also given illustration in this regard. In para 5 the Apex Court has observed that the present petitions arise from cases where all the candidates had committed mistakes while filling up their application forms. Some had projected themselves at a disadvantaged position as explained above while in some cases the situation was to the contrary. In para 7 of Rahul Kumar (Supra) the Apex Court has observed that G.O. and the Circular is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantageous 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 advantageous 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. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantageous 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. 31. In the instant matter, admittedly while filling her application form, the petitioner-appellant is in disadvantageous position. 31. In the instant matter, admittedly while filling her application form, the petitioner-appellant is in disadvantageous position. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rahul Kumar (Supra) while referring the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and communication dated 5.3.2021 had opined that wherever a candidate put himself at disadvantageous position, his candidature is not to be cancelled but if the candidate had been placed at an advantageous position, which is beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature is to be cancelled. Only in this backdrop, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the matter in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others (Supra) had taken note of the judgment passed by Apex Court in Rahul Kumar (Supra) and decided the matter with detailed observations. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 16 of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others (Supra), for ready reference, are reproduced as under : ''9. In the aforesaid case, while upholding the validity of the aforesaid Government Order, it was opined that wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater that what they actually deserve, according to the Communication dated 5.3.2021, their candidature should be rejected, however, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at a disadvantageous position against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in respect of the aforesaid two categories in the Government Order dated 5.3.2021 did not find anything to be irrational. Subsequently, the issue was examined in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) with reference to the same selection process. While referring to the Government Orders dated 4.12.2020 and 5.3.2021, it was opined that wherever a candidate had put himself at a disadvantageous position, his candidature is not to be cancelled but if the candidate had been placed at an advantageous position which is beyond his right to claim, his candidature is to be cancelled. Relevant paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment read as under: ''7. Relevant paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment read 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. 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 28.3.2021 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. 9. We have given this illustration only by way of an example. The authorities shall do well to consider every such order issued by them and cause appropriate corrections or modifications in the light of conclusions stated above. '' 10. From the facts of the bunch of cases listed before us and as has been pointed by some of the counsels, it is evident that the issue has not been examined by the competent authority in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments which relate to the selection process in question. '' 10. From the facts of the bunch of cases listed before us and as has been pointed by some of the counsels, it is evident that the issue has not been examined by the competent authority in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments which relate to the selection process in question. In fact, in some of the cases, the rejection of the candidature, is prior to the aforesaid judgments. 11. As we find that the issues have not been examined by the competent authority in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments interpreting the Government Orders dated 4.12.2020 and 5.3.2021, the matter needs to be re-examined. 12. While setting aside the impugned orders rejecting the candidature of the candidates on account of the error committed by them, we remit the matter to the authority of the district concerned for re-examination thereof in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and to take a final decision thereon. 13. It is made clear that candidates, whose names do not find place in the select list dated 12.5.2020, will not get any benefit with the change of marks as their merit position will not be changed for the reason that in case this is allowed to happen at this stage, it will open the entire selection process which is not the spirit of the order passed by this Court. 14. The entire process shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. It is further directed that in case any candidate is found entitled for appointment and is offered appointment on review of his/her case in terms of the aforesaid directions, he/she shall get all the benefits from the date, he/she joins the service 16. The order passed in this bunch of appeals/writ petitions may not be treated to be an order in rem rather it is an order in personam limited to the candidates before the Court who were vigilant enough to place their grievance before the Court.'' (Emphasis supplied) FINDING 32. The order passed in this bunch of appeals/writ petitions may not be treated to be an order in rem rather it is an order in personam limited to the candidates before the Court who were vigilant enough to place their grievance before the Court.'' (Emphasis supplied) FINDING 32. Regarding the observation made by the Division Bench in para 16 of the above judgment in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra), the learned Standing Counsel made a feeble attempt to submit that the said judgment is not in rem but in personam. The said argument does not merit substance as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav (Supra) and Rahul Kumar (Supra) clearly lay down the law that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position, 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. 33. It is worthy to note that both the above judgments of Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav (Supra) and Rahul Kumar (Supra) have been delivered by a Bench comprising of three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the penultimate para 8 of Rahul Kumar (Supra), the Apex Court has observed that ''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.'' Thus the judgments of Apex Court are fully applicable and binding on the instant case. 34. We find that while deciding Writ-A No. 1356 of 2022 (Rajbanshi v. State of U.P. and others) learned Single Judge has taken note of judgment passed by Division Bench in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) and set aside earlier impugned order dated 22.7.2021 passed by BSA, Mathura. The matter was relegated to BSA, Mathura to pass appropriate order in accordance with law as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra). 35. The matter was relegated to BSA, Mathura to pass appropriate order in accordance with law as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra). 35. We also find that Government Order dated 4.12.2020 or the communication dated 5.3.2021 nowhere provides that advantageous or disadvantageous position of a candidate will be ascertained in respect of marks obtained in an individual examination rather they provide, in unequivocal terms, that if on the basis of incorrect entries of marks a candidate is at an advantageous stage, his appointment shall be cancelled. Therefore, the incorrect entries are to be taken together and thereafter position of the candidate is to be ascertained as to whether applicant due to incorrect entries has gained any advantage or is at a disadvantageous position. 36. In the instant case, facts of the case clearly demonstrate that when incorrect entries made in respect of B.A. examination marks and in respect of BTC examination marks are taken together, the petitioner-appellant due to her mistake is definitely at a disadvantageous position, and therefore, the rights of the petitioner-appellant is well protected in view of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020 and communication dated 5.3.2021, which are duly approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in later judgment of Rahul Kumar (Supra). 37. In the present matter, we find that BSA, Mathura while passing the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 has not correctly considered the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Government Order dated 4.12.2020, communication dated 5.3.2021 and the dictum of Rahul Kumar (Supra). Learned Single Judge has also failed to consider these aspects of the matter while passing the judgment and order impugned. DIRECTIONS 38. In view of above, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 29.3.2024 is set aside. The order passed by BSA, Mathura dated 28.11.2023, impugned in the writ proceeding, is quashed and the writ petition is also allowed. As a consequence whereof, the petitioner-appellant is entitled to be appointed on the post of Asstt. Teacher. The requisite exercise and formalities are directed to be completed by all concerned in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.