JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Petitioners, in both these writ petitions, have challenged their respective termination orders whereby their services on the post of Assistant Teachers were declared void ab initio since its commencement. 2. Impugned orders are effectively similarly worded, therefore, after deleting the name of petitioner, operative part of one of the impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: 3. This Court proceed to consider the rival submissions on basis of an undisputed fact that petitioners have filled and submitted their online forms disclosing wrongly that on date of submission of their online forms, they have passed their respective BTC Course as well as they have wrongly mentioned their marks obtained in BTC Course despite results were not announced. The Court also proceed on basis that all petitioners have subsequently passed their BTC Course within few days of submission of their online form and later on opening a window have made corrections in their respective application form also. 4. Facts of the case, which led to filing of these two writ petitions, in brief, are that State Government has issued Government Order dated 09.12.2014 whereby applications for recruitment of 15,000 Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education, U.P. were invited. Thereafter a circular dated 11.12.2014 was issued disclosing time table for submission of forms etc. Admittedly petitioners have not submitted their online forms as they were not eligible on given date. For reference said circular, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinafter: 5. There was a litigation with regard to said recruitment which reached upto this Court in Writ (A) No. 533 of 2015, (Devendra Narayan Pandey and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was decided on 02.02.2015 and accordingly a corrigendum dated 09.04.2015 was issued with regard to eligibility of D.Ed. Aforesaid corrigendum, in its entirety, is also reproduced hereinafter: 6. In pursuance of above corrigendum a fresh timeline of submission of forms was also issues, which is reproduced hereinafter: 7. The petitioners have submitted their online forms for registration on 27.04.2015 disclosing marks in BTC though admittedly results were announced after few days. It is the case of petitioners that it was mandatory to fill details of BTC for registration online. The petitioners have submitted their online forms for registration on 27.04.2015 disclosing marks in BTC though admittedly results were announced after few days. It is the case of petitioners that it was mandatory to fill details of BTC for registration online. It is further case of petitioners that by way of present time schedule fresh registrations were also invited and that window opened was not limited for applicants who passed D.Ed. only. 8. A further notification dated 16.04.2015 was issued wherein an opportunity was granted to applicants who have already submitted their forms on website to upload corrections between 01.05.2015 to 07.05.2015. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 9. Another notification was issued on 06.07.2015 whereby permission was accorded to candidates who have passed Special BTC- 2004, 2007 and 2008 and such candidates who were within permissible age limit as on 01.07.2015 to submit application forms. 10. Thereafter a fresh time schedule was issued on 31.08.2015 which was followed by Circular dated 10.10.2015. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter: 11. In pursuance of above circular a fresh timeline was issued for candidates to submit application forms between 02.09.2015 to 11.09.2015. Meanwhile, another litigation came up before this Court challenging contents of above referred circular dated 10.10.2015 in Writ (A) No. 59443 of 2015 (Anil Kumar Maurya and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) wherein interim orders were passed on 15.10.2015 and 18.12.2015. 12. Meanwhile, on 04.12.2015 another notification was issued whereby opportunity to submit application form was afforded between 14.12.2015 to 28.12.2015 to such candidates who have passed Bachelor of Elementary Education Degree in pursuance of a judgment passed by this Court on 23.02.2015 in Writ (A) No. 1205 of 2015 (Kuldeep Kumar Patel and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others). 13. Thereafter on 18.12.2015 State Government issued Government order specifying common date for submission of forms on 15.01.2016 followed by another notification dated 28.12.2015 as well as a fresh time schedule was also issued to submit forms between 30.12.2015 to 15.01.2016 with specific note that cut off date for eligibility was fixed to be 15.01.2016. The above referred Government Order dated 18.12.2015 was challenged before Lucknow Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 326 of 2016 (Mahendra Pratap Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) but the same was dismissed by order dated 18.04.2016 and thereafter counselling was held. The above referred Government Order dated 18.12.2015 was challenged before Lucknow Bench of this Court in Service Single No. 326 of 2016 (Mahendra Pratap Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) but the same was dismissed by order dated 18.04.2016 and thereafter counselling was held. For reference notification dated 28.12.2015 and fresh time schedule are mentioned hereinafter: 14. So far as petitioners are concerned, admittedly they have not submitted their forms in pursuance of Government Order dated 09.12.2014 since they were not eligible. However, when time schedule was extended by Government Order dated 09.04.2015, petitioners who were under BTC Training, got registered themselves on 28.04.2015, i.e. two days before their result were likely to be announced. 15. It is the case of petitioners that since the forms with vacant columns with regard to details of BTC could not be submitted, therefore, they have entered some imaginary numericals. It is further case of petitioners that when opportunity was granted by circular dated 16.04.2015 to make corrections in online application upto 07.05.2015 they have made corrections and mentioned correct marks got in their BTC Course. It is further case of petitioners that their marks were verified and there is no case of any forgery and being eligible, they were duly selected. They got appointment orders on 02.07.2016 and started to impart their duties and got salary also. 16. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate for petitioners, in above referred petitions, have submitted that an inquiry was initiated and similarly worded show cause notices / charge sheets were issued to petitioners mainly on ground that when they have submitted their online forms on 27.04.2015 result of BTC Course 2015 was not announced and it was announced later on 29.04.2015, therefore, they were not eligible for appointment since they have not possessed requisite eligibility qualification on date of registration and further a window was opened for candidates who possessed D.Ed. qualification and not for other candidates. Petitioners have submitted their respective reply, however, as referred above, their reply were not found satisfactory and on above referred grounds their selection were held void ab initio. 17. qualification and not for other candidates. Petitioners have submitted their respective reply, however, as referred above, their reply were not found satisfactory and on above referred grounds their selection were held void ab initio. 17. Learned Senior Advocates further submitted that incorrect information submitted at the time of submission of online forms was only for the purpose that their online forms may be got registered as their result was about to be declared within two days. The petitioners have made correction as an opportunity was granted by respondents later on. There is no dispute that when petitioners were appointed they have duly eligible for the post. Merit list was prepared on basis of marks obtained. 18. Both learned Senior Advocates have vehemently submitted that in the process of recruitment various orders were passed by this Court and respondents have extended last date of submission of forms on many occasions. Even they allowed fresh applications also. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused to anyone. Petitioners were duly eligible when merit list was prepared and even after two days of submission of online forms. Both learned Senior Advocates have drawn attention of this Court on judgments passed by this Court with regard to earlier litigation. 19. Per contra, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagwanshi and Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, Ms. Akanksha Sharma, Advocate for Respondents-3 and 4 and Sri Rishi Srivastava, Advocate for newly impleaded Respondents-5 to 25, have submitted that advertisement and notifications specifically state that on the date of submission of online form, applicants have to possess requisite eligibility and admittedly petitioners’ result of BTC Course, when they have submitted their online forms, was not announced. They further referred the application forms of petitioners annexed alongwith writ petitions that knowingly that they have not passed BTC Course on the date when online form was submitted still, in order to mislead the authorities, have filled imaginary marks in front of details of BTC column. Petitioners’ intention since inception was not bona fide and it could be cured later on, though undisputedly later on (within two days) they possessed requisite qualification. 20. Learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded respondents submitted that petitioners got appointment on the basis of fraud and fraud vitiates every solemn act. Petitioners’ intention since inception was not bona fide and it could be cured later on, though undisputedly later on (within two days) they possessed requisite qualification. 20. Learned counsel appearing for newly impleaded respondents submitted that petitioners got appointment on the basis of fraud and fraud vitiates every solemn act. Newly impleaded respondents’ right to get appointment were not considered despite they are just below the petitioners in merit list and in case writ petitions are dismissed, the claim of newly impleaded respondents be considered in accordance with their own merit. Learned counsel also submitted that a detailed inquiry report was submitted against the petitioners but it was not challenged, therefore, no relief could be granted. He referred some portion of inquiry report. The window opened by respondents was limited to some applicants and it was not opened for petitioners. Pattern of filling up forms also creates doubt since there were many similarities. 21. In regard to above submission, learned Senior Advocates submitted that there is no legal argument to challenge inquiry report since petitioners have challenged final adverse impugned order. The factual aspect of inquiry report is not under dispute except that, window was opened for all applicants and later on permission was granted for correction also. This specifically includes BTC also (See Para 13 of this judgment). Learned counsel for State-Respondents has not disputed the above referred factual aspect, when during hearing asked a specific query on this issue. 22. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 23. As referred above, during long recruitment process various orders were passed by this Court which led issuance of several Government Orders and Circulars. The time schedule of submitting application forms and other formalities were re-scheduled on atleast 2-3 occasions. Even the applications were allowed to be submitted from other candidates who have possessed different qualifications also. Therefore, it can be said that even who have qualified during this long process were allowed to participate in recruitment process. A reference on a notification dated 28.12.2015, referred above, would be relevant as it allowed the candidates to participate in selection process if they possess essential qualification as on 15.01.2016, i.e. much after petitioners possessed essential qualification. 24. There is no dispute that petitioners were qualified within 2-3 days after they have submitted online forms. A reference on a notification dated 28.12.2015, referred above, would be relevant as it allowed the candidates to participate in selection process if they possess essential qualification as on 15.01.2016, i.e. much after petitioners possessed essential qualification. 24. There is no dispute that petitioners were qualified within 2-3 days after they have submitted online forms. Later on petitioners have also made corrections in application forms with regard to their respective numbers in BTC Course. In the given circumstances, if petitioners have applied later on their candidature could not be rejected on ground that they have not possessed BTC Course. There is no dispute that merit list was prepared on basis of petitioners’ result in BTC Course and other factors. 25. This led to narrow down the controversy before this Court that, admittedly petitioners’ act was not bona fide when they submitted their initial online forms for registration and wrongly disclosed that they have passed BTC Course and also wrongly disclosed their marks in BTC Course though they have passed BTC Course after few days of registration and later on they have made corrections in this regard also when an opportunity was granted. Therefore, issue now before this Court is, whether such act would be sufficient to hold that since they were not qualified on the date of registration and they have misrepresented also, their appointments were rightly declared void ab initio or not? 26. It cannot be disputed that “fraud vitiates every solemn act.” In normal circumstances this Court would not hesitate to take a view that since petitioners have submitted wrong information in their forms at the stage of registration and their act was not bona fide since inception, therefore, they are not entitled to remain in service. 26. It cannot be disputed that “fraud vitiates every solemn act.” In normal circumstances this Court would not hesitate to take a view that since petitioners have submitted wrong information in their forms at the stage of registration and their act was not bona fide since inception, therefore, they are not entitled to remain in service. However, in peculiar circumstances of present case where due to intervention of this Court at various stages, State-Respondents have issued many circulars and extended the arena of submitting forms and even invited fresh applications also by a notification dated 28.12.2015 extending cut off date for possessing eligibility upto 15.01.2016 as well as already provided a window for correction, therefore, taking note that petitioners have duly qualified and there is no complaint after their appointment and they were qualified even before the extended date of submission of forms and date of correction and as such, in these circumstances the Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, a sympathetic and lenient view be taken. 27. In view of above discussion, the argument raised on behalf of newly impleaded respondents is also liable to be rejected as they are harping only on a condition if petitioners’ case is rejected. In view of above discussion, judgment cited by counsels are distinguishable on facts. 28. In view of above, since the reasons given in impugned order to declare appointment of the petitioners void ab initio have already been cured by subsequent events whereby respondents have allowed even the candidates who have later on passed BTC Course and other Courses also and petitioners have already been punished since they have approached this Court and have suffered also being out of service for sufficient period, therefore, in view of aforesaid peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 29. Accordingly impugned orders dated 05.09.2023 and 08.09.2023 are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to permit petitioners to join their services at their respective places within three weeks from today. Petitioners are directed to submit separate certified copy of this judgment within a week from today. 30. 29. Accordingly impugned orders dated 05.09.2023 and 08.09.2023 are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to permit petitioners to join their services at their respective places within three weeks from today. Petitioners are directed to submit separate certified copy of this judgment within a week from today. 30. The writ petitions are disposed of with further direction that from the period of impugned orders till the date of joining, since petitioners have not worked, therefore, in view of principle of “no work no pay” they will not be entitled for salary for that period, however, their services will be treated in continuity on notional basis. 31. In aforesaid circumstances, it is also observed that in further recruitment process a column, namely, “status of result” may also be included in the application form so as to facilitate the candidates whose result are awaited and likely to be declared in a short period, if there is no legal impediment.