JUDGMENT : MANGESH S. PATIL, J. 1. Heard. Rule in all these petitions. It is made returnable forthwith. 2. The learned AGPs and the learned advocate Mr. Nikam for respondent-Maharashtra State Council of Examinations (Examination Council) waive service. At the joint request of the parties, all these matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment to avoid rigmarole, since, with little variations of facts, all these petitions raise a common grievance. 3. We have also heard learned advocate, Mr. Dhakne, for intervenor in Writ Petition No. 10821 of 2024. 4. All these petitioners, having participated at Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test – 2022 (TAIT-2022) conducted by the Examination Council under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), and had registered themselves on the portal provided therefor, namely ‘Pavitra Portal’ by uploading their self-certification in the first round, are seeking writ of mandamus directing the Council to allow them to participate in the second round of the ensuing recruitment process of teachers in the State of Maharashtra and to permit them to edit their self-certification. This is the common thread across all these petitions, with individual variations on facts. 5. Though the date is already over, even before we heard these matters and reserved those for passing orders, in our considered view, it would be a matter of right in the petitioners which should be the determinative factor. This being not a cut off date for holding some examination and the local bodies and the private managements would be periodically uploading their need to undertake recruitment process, we thought it fit to decide these matters on their own merits, rather than disposing them of having become infructuous. 6. The learned advocates for all these petitioners would take us through the papers to demonstrate that having been qualified and became eligible by completing either the TET, C-TET or being graduate with the B.Ed. Degree, which are the three eligibility criteria as provided under sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 and as laid down in the matter of Dheerajkumar Vilas Lomate Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 12971 of 2024, by a division bench of this Court, had appeared at TAIT-2022, as per the regulations, pursuant to the advertisement published by the Examination Council on 31.01.2023. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 12971 of 2024, by a division bench of this Court, had appeared at TAIT-2022, as per the regulations, pursuant to the advertisement published by the Examination Council on 31.01.2023. During the first round of the recruitment process, in spite of registration by way of self-certification, the petitioners were unable to secure employment. 7. The learned advocates would submit that the respondents are seeking to undertake a second round of the recruitment process through TAIT-2022. They have issued advertisements/notifications on 20.01.2025 and have notified the local bodies and the private managements running the schools to participate, and have released a press note on 06.02.2025, and again on 10.03.2025 expecting the exercise of self-certification to be completed by 20.03.2025. 8. The learned advocates for the petitioners would broadly base their submissions on the ground that the Examination Council allowed not only fresh registration of the candidates for the second round, even when they had not registered during the first round but even has permitted in some cases to edit their self-certification. It is demonstrative of the fact that there is no complete bar for the candidates who have participated in the first round, like the petitioners, to edit their self-certification while participating in the second round. They would submit that no sanctity is attached to self-certification made in the first round. The petitioners, under the peculiar circumstances, obtaining in their individual cases, have intended to edit their self certification and should be allowed to do so. 9. The learned AGPs, by referring to the affidavits-in- reply filed in some of these writ petitions, and Mr. Nikam for the Examination Council, would strongly oppose the petitioners’ request. They submit that this Court, in different matters, has expressly denied similar requests for editing self-certification, particularly in cases where either the qualifications have been acquired after the cut off date of which the candidates were seeking to take advantage or have obtained some certificates claiming reservations after the cut off date. They further submit that these petitioners are not eligible for being appointed as teachers for primary (1 st to 5 th ) and higher primary (6 th to 8 th ) standards, having not cleared the basic eligibility criteria of TET or C-TET before appearing at the TAIT-22 which was held between 22.02.2023 and 03.03.2023. They further submit that these petitioners are not eligible for being appointed as teachers for primary (1 st to 5 th ) and higher primary (6 th to 8 th ) standards, having not cleared the basic eligibility criteria of TET or C-TET before appearing at the TAIT-22 which was held between 22.02.2023 and 03.03.2023. They would submit that admittedly 23.02.2023 was the cut off date, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.01.2023. 10. They would advert our attention to clause No. 4.9 of the advertisement dated 31.01.2023 expressly mentioned that the candidates who were claiming vertical or horizontal reservation must possess the requisite certificate of the period prior to the cut off date. They would also refer to clause No. 5.3 of the advertisement expressly mentioned that the candidates should possess requisite educational qualifications before the cut off date. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the candidates were put to notice by adverting their attention to the Government Resolution dated 10.11.2022 in the department of School Education and Sports, expressly laying down that they will have to appear for TAIT afresh every time, and their performance/marks obtained at the previous TAIT will not be considered. 11. Lastly, they would submit that in the matter of group of writ petitions, Dheerajkumar Vilas Lomate Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others; Writ Petition No. 12971 of 2024, by the order dated 23.01.2025, a coordinate division bench of this Court turned down a similar request for editing self-certification and the challenge put up by them before the Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4326-4328 of 2025 has been rejected by the Supreme Court on 21.02.2025. They would thus submit that this Court will have to be consistent and should dismiss all these petitions. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. At the out set, it is necessary to observe that in the matter of Dheerajkumar (Supra), similar prayers as are being made by these petitioners, for editing their self- certification for having obtained the ‘Project Affected Person’ certificate, ‘Economically Weaker Section’ certificate after the cut off date and the request for editing the self-certification, permitting them to change their category and claim the reservation, was expressly turned down on the ground that those were obtained after the cut off date and were not entitled to change their category. The petitions were dismissed of the order has been confirmed in the form of dismissal and the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph No. 7 to 11 of the order of the division bench, which read as under:- 7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. The petitioners were registered on PAVITRA portal on 30.09.2023, from EWS category. They applied for PAP certificates on 20.03.2024, 26.03.2024 and 16.07.2024 respectively. On the same date, the certificates were secured. 8. The advertisement for the registration on PAVITRA portal was published on 01.09.2023. After considering the applications, the merit list was published on 26.02.2024. In the merit list, petitioner in the first petition scored 103 marks, petitioner in the second petition scored 95 marks and the petitioner in third petition scored 101 marks in EWS category. As per the merit list, cut off was declared which was much higher than the marks secured by the petitioners. 9. Considering the sequence of events, it is apparent that petitioners could not fare well in merits in EWS category and thereafter they applied for PAP certificates and secured then. Petitioners are taking chances. They tried from EWS category. Sensing that they are not likely to be successful, they are trying to change the category from EWS to PAP. 10. We have carefully perused the letter dated 10.09.2024 in order to comprehend the submissions made by the petitioner on the ground of discrimination. The letter is very specific and it is for vertical reservation. The permission was given for changing self certification or category. There is no policy of the respondents allowing the candidates to change their category for horizontal reservation. The written instructions tendered by learned AGP are in tune with the policy of the government which is in vogue. Under these circumstances, we do not find that petitioners have made out a case of arbitrariness or high-handedness . 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that their lands were acquired long back and it is not a case that on the eleventh hour they are managing to secure certificates. The respondents are not disputing the status of the petitioners. However, initially their applications were from EWS category. After declaration of cut off they are soliciting change in the category which is impermissible as per the policy. The respondents are not disputing the status of the petitioners. However, initially their applications were from EWS category. After declaration of cut off they are soliciting change in the category which is impermissible as per the policy. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioners. 13. As can be gathered, the coordinate division bench of this Court has already turned down requests similar to those made by these petitioners, and these reasons assigned, would be sufficient, even to discard these claims. 14. In Writ Petition No. 2282 of 2025, the petitioner had registered himself in the first round with the self- certification expressly mentioning that he was not claiming any horizontal reservation available to orphans. He obtained the requisite certificate on 08.08.2024, as per the Government Resolution dated 06.04.2023, when he was supposed to possess it before the cut off date, that is, 30.09.2023. 15. In Writ Petition No. 2284 of 2025, the petitioner obtained ‘Project Affected Person’ certificate on 28.12.2023 after the cut off date. 16. In Writ Petition No. 3705 of 2025, the petitioner had obtained the ‘Project Affected Person’ certificate but did not claim any reservation while registering in the first round. 17. As regards the petitioners from Writ Petition No. 10821 of 2024, on acquiring the C-TET qualification they are now seeking to participate in the recruitment process. They had cleared the paper – 1 and/or paper – 2 after the cut off date, meaning thereby that none of them was eligible to participate in the recruitment process on the basis of qualification which they possessed. 18. In Writ Petition No. 3896 of 2025, while registering in the first process by self-certification, the petitioner did not claim any horizontal reservation under the ‘sportsman’ category, even when he was already having requisite certificate dated 18.11.2015. Meaning thereby that though he was entitled to claim reservation he opted for it. Same is the case in respect of the petitioner from Writ Petition No. 3705 of 2025. Both these petitioners were having requisite certificates but had chosen not to claim such reservation. As has been held in the matter of Dheerajkumar (Supra), they cannot be allowed to edit the self-certification to claim the reservation. 19. Same is the case in respect of the petitioner from Writ Petition No. 3705 of 2025. Both these petitioners were having requisite certificates but had chosen not to claim such reservation. As has been held in the matter of Dheerajkumar (Supra), they cannot be allowed to edit the self-certification to claim the reservation. 19. It appears that all these petitioners could appear at TAIT-2022 on the basis of their eligibility based on clearing the TET or C-TET which are essential qualifications for recruitment as a teacher for standard 1 st to 8 th , without claiming any reservation or having requisite certificate before the cut off date as is required by clause No. 4.9 and 5.3, and some of the petitioners could appear at TAIT-2022 being graduate with B.Ed degree and were eligible to be recruited to teach 9 th and 10 th standards. Having not been able to secure any employment in the first round, they are now either claiming the reservation, which is prohibited by effecting change in the self-certification or are now seeking to become eligible on the basis of their TET/C-TET qualification for being recruited as primary teachers, having acquired such qualification after the cut off date. 20. Being entitled to claim a reservation is one thing, and having a requisite certificate claiming a specific reservation is another thing. Similarly, being entitled to claim reservation, and in spite of having requisite certificate choosing not to claim it and seeking to edit self-certification in the second process to enable such claim, cannot be approved. 21. Since, it is a matter of mass scale recruitment process being undertaken through ‘Pavitra Portal’, any such lee way cannot be extended to the participants. Pertinently, the second round is being conducted since out of 2,39,730 candidates who had enrolled only 70% to 80% of the vacant seats could be filled in. Admittedly, the second round is to be undertaken to fill in only the vacant posts (21,678) which remained after completion of the first process. 22. Even if, in some cases, fresh registration and even editing of the self-certification has been permitted, as can be seen, that has been allowed only to meet a specific contingency. It is only in respect of such candidates from the unreserved category and EWS categories, are permitted to edit the self-certification and claim reservation as Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC). It is only in respect of such candidates from the unreserved category and EWS categories, are permitted to edit the self-certification and claim reservation as Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC). The circular dated 10.03.2025 expressly lays down that a candidate cannot change the category of horizontal reservation, since the cut off marks were already published in the first round. 23. In light of above, there is no merit in any of these petitions and these are liable to be dismissed. 24. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. 25. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petitions, Civil Application Stamp No. 12944 of 2025 is disposed of. 26. Rule is discharged.