JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Fairness is the soul of any competitive examination. Any compromise of merit would betray confidence and trust of meritorious candidates on examination system and in case some irregularity is detected during process of examination and there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of justice and to maintain fairness, an endeavour has to be taken to cure it. This is what happened in facts and circumstances of present cases. 2. Petitioners have participated in selection for recruitment of 68500 Assistant Teachers in Basic Education Department in the year 2018. After examination, petitioners were in the list of selected candidates (41556) in a result declared as 16th August, 2018. Petitioners thereafter appeared in counselling, their documents were verified, they were appointed and later on they joined in September, 2018 on probation of one year. Petitioners appointments were cancelled by means of similarly worded orders impugned in writ petitions and one of such impugned order dated 07.09.2019 annexed in leading writ petition, i.e., Writ-A No. 15229 of 2019, is reproduced hereinafter: 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate and Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, Sri Bashisth Narayan Pandey, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates for different petitioners, submitted that above referred impugned order does not discloses any reason(s) for cancellation of appointments of respective petitioners as well as Government Order dated 05.10.2018 and subsequent Circular dated 16.08.2019 would not provide any power to concerned respondent to pass impugned orders. On basis of pleadings they submitted that respondents have no power to re-evaluate the answer booklets of petitioners as relevant rules and procedure does not permit to do so. Learned counsel have submitted that in absence of any procedure prescribed, entire exercise to recheck answer booklets was illegal and impermissible, therefore, impugned orders cannot survive. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that both Government Orders dated 05.10.2018 and 16.08.2019, referred in impugned orders, do not deal with issue of re-examination of answer booklets, rather details mentioned in said Government Orders would indicate that exercise undertaken was contrary to procedure prescribed. For reference both Government Orders are reproduced hereinafter: 5. The above referred Government Order and Circular have declared that: (i) Total 1,07,865 answer booklets were examined. (ii) On examination of 1,07,865 answer booklets difference was found in 343 answer booklets. For reference both Government Orders are reproduced hereinafter: 5. The above referred Government Order and Circular have declared that: (i) Total 1,07,865 answer booklets were examined. (ii) On examination of 1,07,865 answer booklets difference was found in 343 answer booklets. (iii) Out of above referred 343 booklets- (a) despite difference result of 239 candidates was remained unaffected; (b) due to rechecking 51 candidates, who were earlier declared failed, were found successful; and, (c) remaining 53 candidates, who were earlier declared successful, were found failed on rechecking. The petitioners before this court are from above referred batch of 53 candidates. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners have placed reliance on judgments passed by this Court in Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC:9510-DB and Ram Naresh Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. - 2017:AHC:185314. Relevant paragraphs of the judgments are reproduced hereinafter: Omveer Singh (supra) “10. In the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 impugned in Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, the learned Single Judge has observed and recorded finding to the effect that Petitioner-Appellant Rajveer Singh and petitioner non-appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra have secured 53 marks in first evaluation while in the second evaluation Rajveer Singh Yadav has got 46 marks and Suresh Chandra have got 45 marks. 11. Relevant part of judgment and order impugned reads as under: "... Answer sheet in question has not at all been checked as not even a single mark is there which would reflect that at any point of time same have been objectively checked by the examiner concerned and examiner has proceeded to award marks looking into the performance as put in by the petitioners. Confronted with this Examination Controller who is present in person contended that specific instructions have been issued to the examiner and examiner was only required to fill up front page and in view of this it has been stated that transparency has been maintained in evaluation. Confronted with this Examination Controller who is present in person contended that specific instructions have been issued to the examiner and examiner was only required to fill up front page and in view of this it has been stated that transparency has been maintained in evaluation. Evaluation process which has been so adopted is not at all been approved of as answer sheets in question bears no mark whatsoever which would reflect that mind has been applied by the examiner while evaluating the said answer sheets as each and every answer sheet has been left blank without any sign of any evaluation exercise having been carried out except that on the cover page of answer sheet marks has been awarded and that too on two occasions. Evaluation is an act or process to ascertain the quality of performance put in by the candidate who has undertaken the examination. Such type of evaluation of examining body cannot be approved of as under the Right to Information Act, 2005 any incumbent can get answer sheet in question to satisfy himself/herself as to whether it has been properly evaluation or not. Here in the present case answer sheets have been left blank and and it has not at all been shown and demonstrated before this Court as to in what way and manner said answer sheets in question have been evaluated and on cover paper on first evaluation 53 marks have been awarded to both the petitioners and on second evaluaton same have been reduced to 46 and 45 marks respectively. Except for awarding marks, no other record of evaluation has been maintained. The examiner has purportedly evaluated the answer sheet on first occasion and on second occasion marks have been reduced. Once answer sheet would have been examined, then this Court could also examine the action of examiner in reducing the marks and specially when in the Rules there is no provision for re-evaluation. Evaluation exercise in effect are reasons given by examiner for awarding such marks. Exercise undertaken is not at all subscribed by rules." 12. In the facts of the case as purported evaluation of answer sheet is not at all being approved of and it does not indicate any application of mind vis-a-vis marks given and on the basis of above, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition Nos. Exercise undertaken is not at all subscribed by rules." 12. In the facts of the case as purported evaluation of answer sheet is not at all being approved of and it does not indicate any application of mind vis-a-vis marks given and on the basis of above, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition Nos. 38563 of 2011 and 38676 of 2011 with direction to afresh evaluation of the answer-sheets of petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav and petitioner- non appellant Suresh Chandra. 13. Though learned standing counsel has tried his best to counter the observation and findings recorded by learned Single Judge as referred in detail in predecesing paragraph, despite repeated querries by the Court about second evaluation of answer sheets, learned Standing Counsel could not show for specific provision which was authorising the Board for second evaluation of answer sheet and award marks to appellants on the basis of average marks of two evaluated these answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper except to submissions made on the basis of above referred paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 by Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. 14. In these circumstances, we find no occasion to take a different view as observed in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge except of modification in direction regarding re-evaluation of answer sheets afresh. 15. It is clear from the averments of paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit of Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., that answer-sheets of Hindi Essay Paper of the candidates have been subjected to evaluation twice and the candidates were finally awarded marks in Hindi paper on the basis of average of the marks of the two evaluations. The writ court has allowed the Writ Petition Nos.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav and Writ Petition No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. with direction to evaluate of answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper of above petitioners afresh. 16. In view of observations and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect of various discrepancies in evaluation of the answer sheet of Hindi Essay Paper and impermissibility of evaluation process of answer-sheet by the Board, and due to non-satisfactory answer for second the evaluation of answer-sheets and any specific provision or authority for permission of second evaluation of answer sheets. We are of considered view that manner of the second evaluation of answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper adopted by the respondents is arbitrary, violatiave of concerned recruitment rules, unauthorised and illegal.” (Emphasis supplied) Ram Naresh Singh (supra) “93. Both in the case of the Rajesh Kumar (supra) and in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) almost on similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that candidates, who were selected earlier due to erroneous decision of the Selection Board and who continued to work for sometime on the said post, could not be allowed to suffer because of the error on the part of the Selection Board. At the same time, no candidate could be allowed to earn an undeserved advantage over others by an application of a erroneous Answer Key. 94. In balancing the equities the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that candidates later on selected by application of rectified Answer Key were to be given appointment and such candidates would earn their seniority from the date the wrongly selected candidates were first appointed in accordance with their merit position. The appointments of such correctly selected candidates after re-evaluation of their Answer Scripts should relate back to the date when wrongly selected candidates were first appointed with continuity of service to them for the purpose of seniority, but without any back wages or other incidental benefits. 95. Such candidates, who could not make a grade after re-evaluation, i.e. candidates like the petitioners herein should not be ousted from service, but should figure at the bottom of the list of the selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of the advertisement issued, and also all such selected candidates, whose results had been announced after the second selection pursuant to a later advertisement. 96. This Court in respectful deference to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) and in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) and in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 (Ran Vijay Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others) may also issue such directions for the case of writ petitioners herein. 97. 97. The writ petitioners therefore cannot be ousted from service altogether and shall be kept at the bottom of the rectified Select List issued for Advertisement No. 1 of 2010, and also any other Select List on the basis of any later advertisement issued by the Selection Board, selection on the basis of which has been completed and recommendations made for appointment. The petitioners shall be offered fresh appointments on the posts of Hindi Teachers L.T. Grade in Institution, which have determined such vacancies in direct recruitment quota and intimated them to the District Inspector of School concerned and further notified to the Selection Board, but on which vacancies selection has not been advertised or finalized by the Selection Board till date. 98. If need be then supernumerary posts be created for the petitioners as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 for similarly situated appellants therein, who were ousted as a consequence of rectification of result of selection held for Trained Graduate Grade Teachers in Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 of the Selection Board.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Manvendra Dixit, Sri Brijesh Narayan Srivastava, Sri L.M. Singh and Sri Suresh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Sri Sanjay Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauria and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Advocates appearing for respective District District Basic Education Officers, have placed reliance on counter affidavit and orders passed by this Court during hearing that after re-evaluation it was found that despite petitioners got very less marks, as mentioned in their respective answer booklets, in tabulation chart they were granted much more marks. They referred the tabulation chart annexed alongwith counter affidavit and scanned copy of the same is pasted hereinafter: 8. Learned counsel also submitted that on basis of complaints marks given on answer booklets were compared with tabulation chart and 343 cases were found where there was difference between two. All 343 booklets were re-examined and finally 53 cases were detected where there was huge different and merit was compromised. These candidates were wrongly selected, therefore, their appointments were cancelled. Original booklets were summoned by this court and above discrepancies were found. The petitioners were allowed to get photocopy of booklets also. On facts, judgments cited by petitioners are distinguishable. All 343 booklets were re-examined and finally 53 cases were detected where there was huge different and merit was compromised. These candidates were wrongly selected, therefore, their appointments were cancelled. Original booklets were summoned by this court and above discrepancies were found. The petitioners were allowed to get photocopy of booklets also. On facts, judgments cited by petitioners are distinguishable. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Before adverting to rival submissions, it would be relevant to quote relevant orders passed by this Court during hearing as under: Order dated 07.11.2019 “Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had appeared in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination- 2018 in which he was declared successful and accordingly he was appointed. Pursuant to that, he has submitted his joining but all of sudden, without providing opportunity of hearing, impugned order dated 07.09.2019 has been passed by which his services were terminated on the ground that after re-evaluation, he was awarded lesser marks than the cut-off-marks required for appointment. It is next submitted that once petitioner has joined his services, he can only be terminated in accordance with service rules applicable in the case of petitioner. Put up this case on 15.11.2019 in the additional cause list. Learned standing counsel is directed to produce original answer book, model answer key as well as records/complaints which leads to re-evaluation of answer book of petitioner on the next date fixed. Learned standing counsel as well as Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 5 shall also inform the Court that whether any notice has been given to the petitioner or not and in case any such notice is given, they shall also produce the copy of the same.” Order dated 15.11.2019 “Pursuant to order of this Court dated 7.11.2019, learned Standing Counsel has produced two sealed cover envelops, one sealed cover envelop is having 14 answer books and other sealed cover envelop is having photostat copy of tabulation chart. The same are retained in the custody of Registrar General which shall be produced in the Court tomorrow i.e. 16.11.2019 at 10.00 A.M. Put up tomorrow i.e. 16.11.2019 in the additional cause list alongwith connected matters.” Order dated 16.11.2019 “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 5. Brief facts of the case are that earlier petitioner along with many other candidates had appeared in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 and declared successful. Ultimately they have been given appointment. Pursuant to the appointment letters, they have submitted their joining and working at the place of their posting. Now by impugned order dated 16.08.2019, her services has been terminated and in the impugned order, it is mentioned that after receiving some complaints, re-evaluation was conducted and 49 candidates including petitioner was found fail as they have not obtained minimum cut off marks and due to which her services was terminated. Similar orders of termination have also been passed in the matter of 48 candidates. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that she had never applied for revaluation, therefore, her answer book cannot be revaluated and further no opportunity was given to her prior to passing the impugned order. This Court vide order dated 07.11.2019 directed learned standing counsel to produce original answer book, model answer key as well as records/complaints which leads to re-evaluation of answer book of petitioner. Pursuant to that, original answer book of 14 candidates including petitioner out of 49 candidates along with photocopy of tabulation chart having marks of petitioner as well as many other candidates have been produced before the Court. Letter dated 01.08.2019 has also been produced before the Court having the list of all such 49 candidates along with chart of their marks after first evaluation, revaluation and also marks mentioned in tabulation chart upon which they have been given appointment. This letter was sent to Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj by Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj. Photocopy of tabulation chart and letter dated 01.08.2019 along with detail chart of 49 candidates be taken on record. Mr. Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority is also present before this Court for proper assistance. This letter was sent to Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj by Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj. Photocopy of tabulation chart and letter dated 01.08.2019 along with detail chart of 49 candidates be taken on record. Mr. Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority is also present before this Court for proper assistance. By the perusal of 14 answer books as well as tabulation chart annexed along with letter dated 01.08.2019, it is found that after re-evaluation, either marks of the petitioner and other candidates have been increased or there is no change in their marks, but most shocking and surprising thing is that tabulation chart is having entirely different marks which is much higher than the marks given on the answer books after first evaluation and revaluation. Petitioner before this Court had earlier obtained 53 marks and after re-evaluation she has been awarded 54 marks whereas in the tabulation charge, she has been given 62 marks and upon that she has been given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The position is same about all other 48 candidates mentioned in tabulation chart annexed along with letter dated 01.08.2019. For example, another candidate namely Divya Agrahari who is also petitioner in other petition had been awarded 18 marks and after revaluation she has been awarded 19 marks but in the tabulation chart, she has been given 81 marks, Basant Kumar Yadav had been awarded 8 marks and after revaluation, he has been awarded 9 marks, but in tabulation chart, he has been given 75 marks, M.D. Ejahar had been awarded 8 marks and after revaluation, he has been again awarded 8 marks, but in tabulation chart, he has been given 68 marks and Gulab Devi had been awarded 4 marks and after revaluation, she has also been again awarded 4 marks, but in tabulation chart, she has been given 84 marks. Other candidates are also having the same factual position. On being confronted by the Court, Mr. Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority has informed the Court that appointments are given to the candidates on the basis of marks mentioned in tabulation chart, which is also shown in chart annexed along with letter dated 01.08.2019. He further informed that in all these matters, show cause notice has been issued to concerned teachers, who had prepared the tabulation chart, but no F.I.R. has been lodged in this matter. He further informed that in all these matters, show cause notice has been issued to concerned teachers, who had prepared the tabulation chart, but no F.I.R. has been lodged in this matter. After perusing the 14 answer books, tabulation chart as well as chart annexed along with letter dated 01.08.2019, it is very much clear that fraud was played at very large scale and it is a fit case to lodge FIR, therefore, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj is directed to lodge FIR in this matter. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 5 pray for and are granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List this case on 11.12.2019 in top three cases along with connected matters. Original answer books of 14 candidates is returned to Mr. Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority. He is directed to produce answer books of all 49 candidates including these 14 answer books and also copy of F.I.R. lodged in this matter on the next date fixed.” Order dated 12.12.2019 “Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 is taken on record. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the appointment of the petitioners, in this petition and other connected petitions, have been cancelled on the ground that in revaluation their marks have been reduced, due to which, they did not secure minimum qualifying marks and as such, their appointments have been cancelled. This Court passed an order on 16.11.2019 directing the respondents to produce answer books of all the 49 candidates. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 16.11.2019, Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel submitted that answer books of all the 49 candidates have been brought to the Court. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate contended that since there are allegations against the petitioners that the marks have been tempered in the examination copy, therefore, the petitioners have right to see the examination copies. He submits that there is provision to supply scanned copy of answer books, therefore, respondents may be directed to supply the photo-copy of the answer-books to the counsel of each candidates. He submits that there is provision to supply scanned copy of answer books, therefore, respondents may be directed to supply the photo-copy of the answer-books to the counsel of each candidates. Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on instructions from Sri Prem Sanker Singh, Deputy Registrar submitted that the respondents have no objection in supplying the photo-copies of the answer-books to the counsel of each candidates. In view of the statement of Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, this Court directs the respondents to supply the photo-copies of the answer books to the counsel of candidates, who are desirous to obtain it. In this regard, the petitioners are directed to supply the list of candidates, who are desirous of obtaining the photo-copies of the answer books, with details by 2:00 pm on 13.12.2019 in the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel which may be collected by representatives of the Department for doing needful. It is further provided that the counsels of the candidates whose name figures in the list of candidate for obtaining photo-copies of examination, may approach in the Chamber of Chief Standing Counsel to collect the same from the representatives of the Department on 16.12.2019 between 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm Put up this case on 18.12.2019 in the additional cause list.” Order dated 10.01.2020 “Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by by Saurabh Singh, for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.12.2019, scanned copy has been supplied to the petitioner by the respondents and perusal of the scanned copy reflects that there is no tampering by the petitioner in the copy. He submits that the observation made by this Court in its order dated 16.11.2019 that "fraud was played at very large scale" may be modified. Since the petitioner is seeking modification of the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by this Court, therefore, in view of the said fact, let the record of this case be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for necessary orders.” Order dated 16.08.2021 “Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 5 of 2020 Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State. Modification Application No. 5 of 2020 Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while passing the order dated 16.11.19, Court has made an observation and further directed to file FIR. In fact, Court has observed that fraud was played at very large scale and it is a fit case for lodging for FIR, therefore, Investigating Officer is bound with the observation made by the Court and cannot investigate the matter on its own. Court may also please to issue necessary direction to I.O. to carry out investigation without being influenced with the observation made by the Court vide order dated 16.11.2019. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraph in question for which modification application is filed is as follows; "After perusing the 14 answer books, tabulation chart as well as chart annexed along with letter dated 01.08.2019, it is very much clear that fraud was played at very large scale and it is a fit case to lodge FIR, therefore, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj is directed to lodge FIR in this matter." From the perusal of above noted paragraph, contention of learned senior counsel for the applicant appears to be correct, therefore, I.O. is given liberty to carry out investigation on the basis of evidences and witnesses available to him without being influenced with the observation made by the Court in the above noted paragraph. Accordingly, modification application is allowed and order dated 16.11.2019 is modified to that extent only. It is made clear that the case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench in future and shall be listed before appropriate Bench.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused the record and also carefully perused above referred orders passed by this Court during hearing. 12. Original answer booklets of 14 candidates including petitioner in Writ-A No. 15229 of 2019 and later on answer booklets of 49 candidates were summoned and atleast 14 booklets were examined and perused by Coordinate Bench and Court was shocked that marks mentioned in answer booklets vis-a-vis tabulation chart were different and much higher marks were given in tabulation chart. 12. Original answer booklets of 14 candidates including petitioner in Writ-A No. 15229 of 2019 and later on answer booklets of 49 candidates were summoned and atleast 14 booklets were examined and perused by Coordinate Bench and Court was shocked that marks mentioned in answer booklets vis-a-vis tabulation chart were different and much higher marks were given in tabulation chart. The Court notes that in the case of petitioner-Urvashi, she obtained 53 marks as mentioned in answer booklet, on re-evaluation she was awarded 54 marks, whereas in tabulation chart she was given 62 marks, i.e., her marks were increased atleast by 8-9 marks, which is nothing but to give undue advantage to said petitioner. Coordinate Bench has also noted similar irregularities with regard to some other petitioners also. Shockingly three candidates, who got 4, 8 and 8 marks respectively on basis of answers on their answer booklets, were shown as much as 84, 45 and 68 marks respectively in tabulation chart, i.e., huge variation of 80, 37 and 60 marks respectively. It is apparent that fraud was writ large. 13. In order to maintain fairness the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.12.2019 has allowed all petitioners to apply scanned photocopy of answer booklets so that they can verify the allegations. However, during argument none of the petitioners have come up with a submission that there was any ambiguity that despite they get lesser marks in their answer booklets, they were provided much more marks in tabulation chart so that they could qualify in merit list. 14. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no factual dispute that petitioners were granted benefit and were awarded more marks than their merit in tabulation chart, i.e., fairness and merit was compromised. The petitioners were not fairly qualified for post of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners were not able to dispute above referred factual position. 15. In above factual background, only issue left for consideration is, whether in aforesaid circumstances even there is no specific provision for re-evaluation, the entire exercise of re-evaluation could be declared illegal ignoring above referred glaring undisputed fact that petitioners were granted more marks above than their merit, i.e., marks granted on basis of their answer booklets, and they were illegally benefited. 16. The first judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioners is Omveer Singh (supra). Facts of Omveer Singh (supra) are absolutely distinguishable from facts of present case. 16. The first judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioners is Omveer Singh (supra). Facts of Omveer Singh (supra) are absolutely distinguishable from facts of present case. As referred above, in the present case undisputedly petitioners were illegally benefited by giving more marks in tabulation chart whereas in Omveer Singh (supra) petitioners therein were put in an adverse position when they were granted average marks out of the marks granted in two evaluations and in those circumstances the Division Bench has held that procedure for fresh evaluation was wrong. 17. In Ram Naresh Singh (supra) (para 93), as quoted above, the Court has noted that no candidate could be allowed to earn an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous answer key, though in order to maintain equity, some relief was granted taking note the period of appointment also. However, in the present case petitioners were appointed on basis of result in September, 2018 and within one year (i.e., September, 2019) impugned orders were passed. Therefore, the short period of one year is not sufficient to tilt the balance of convenience in favour of petitioners and it could not be ignored that petitioners were in probation period. 18. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no dispute that petitioners were illegally benefited and this Court has verified the said fact from perusal of record produced before Court during hearing. Petitioners have also not been able to dispute that they were granted more marks than their merit so that they could qualify examination, otherwise according to their actual marks they could not get appointment. Less meritorious candidates are not allowed to continue in service at the cost of meritorious candidates and in order to maintain fairness, the procedure adopted by respondents could not be said to be illegal. There is no allegation of any impurity in process of rechecking. As referred above, First Information Reports were lodged. Outcome of investigation is not on record. Complicity of petitioners is also required to be investigated since they were the beneficiaries of fraud. 19. The impleadment applications are rejected since it is informed that the persons seeking impleadment are facing criminal proceedings and it is on record that a First Information Report has already been lodged against them and possibly investigation may also be completed. 20. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. A cost of Rs. 19. The impleadment applications are rejected since it is informed that the persons seeking impleadment are facing criminal proceedings and it is on record that a First Information Report has already been lodged against them and possibly investigation may also be completed. 20. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. A cost of Rs. 5000/- is fixed for each petitioners to be paid within four weeks from today in favour of High Court Legal Services Committee and receipt thereof shall be placed on record.