DILEEP KUMAR YADAV AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

                                                     RESERVED
                                                       AFR

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      WRIT - A No. - 11062 of 2026

Dileep Kumar Yadav and 3 others
                                                        …..Petitioner(s)

                               Versus

State of U.P. and 3 others
                                                      …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Singh


Court No. - 52

            HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and Mr. Shailendra
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

A.    The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, as well as the order dated
29.05.2026 passed by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
Board, Prayagraj.

B.    A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on
the post of Assistant Teacher in the Junior Basic Schools of District
Ballia, permit them to discharge their duties, and release their
regular monthly salary. The petitioners have also prayed for grant of
all consequential benefits flowing from their continuity in service,
including fixation of seniority and payment of arrears of salary for
the period during which they have been deprived of the same.
                                  2
                                               WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

2.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, pursuant to
the Government Order dated 01.12.2018, applications were invited
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher against 69,000
vacancies in Junior Basic Schools established and administered by
the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board. The recruitment process
was accordingly initiated for filling up the aforesaid posts of
Assistant Teachers. The last date prescribed for submission of the
application forms was 22.12.2018.

3.    Under the aforesaid recruitment process, possession of a two-
year BTC training certificate was prescribed as one of the requisite
qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that each
of the petitioners had been duly selected for undergoing the two-
year BTC training course for the 2015-16 batch. However, owing to
the circumstances attending the commencement of the training, the
said course was actually conducted during the academic session
2017–2019.

5.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, while
submitting their applications pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment
process, the petitioners had correctly disclosed their marks as
recorded in their respective mark-sheets, wherein they were shown
to have failed in the BTC examination. Despite such disclosure, the
applications submitted by the petitioners were duly accepted by the
competent authority, having been found to be in order, and admit
cards were thereafter issued to them for appearing in the Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019, scheduled to be held on
06.01.2019.

6.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that all the
petitioners duly appeared in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “ATRE-2019”)
                                   3
                                                 WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

and were declared successful upon declaration of the result in the
first week of May, 2020.

7.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, upon
declaration of the result of the ATRE-2019, the State Government
issued a Government Order dated 13.05.2020 inviting applications
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher from amongst the
candidates who had qualified the said examination. For the
aforesaid purpose, no separate applications were required to be
filled up. Instead, the online application already filled at the time of
consideration of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, as
available on the official website, was required to be further updated
by furnishing the remaining details, including the preference for the
district of appointment.

8.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, upon
declaration of the result of the ATRE-2019, the State Government
issued a Government Order dated 13.05.2020 inviting applications
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher from among the
candidates who had qualified in the said examination. For this
purpose, no separate applications were required to be submitted.
Instead, the online application already submitted at the time of
consideration for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination,
as available on the official website, was required to be updated by
furnishing the remaining details, including the preference for the
district of appointment. A controversy subsequently arose with
regard to discrepancies between the details furnished in the
application form and the documents produced during counselling.
To rectify such discrepancies, the State Government issued
Government Orders dated 04.12.2020 and 05.03.2021, as well as a
circular dated 31.03.2021. Under the said orders and circular, where
there was an increase in marks on account of scrutiny, re-evaluation
or back-paper results, as compared to the marks indicated in the
                                    4
                                                 WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

application form, such increase was not to be treated as an
impediment to granting appointment, and the increased marks were
to be taken into account for that purpose. The validity of the
aforesaid Government Order was upheld by the Supreme Court by
judgment dated 08.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322
of 2021, Jyoti Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and others. In the
aforesaid list, only the name of petitioner no. 4 was included against
Serial No.418, pursuant to which petitioner no. 4 submitted her
joining before the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, on
19.10.2020. Subsequently, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia,
issued an order dated 26.10.2020 cancelling the selection and
appointment of petitioner no. 4.

9.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in the
final select list published by the State authorities, all the petitioners
were shown as finally selected for appointment and were allotted
District Ballia. Pursuant to the counselling conducted in furtherance
of the said selection, an appointment order dated 16.10.2020 was
issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, containing the names
of the candidates selected for appointment. The said order, however,
contained the name of petitioner no. 4 alone, whose name figured at
serial no. 418 therein. Pursuant thereto, petitioner no. 4 submitted
her joining before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, on
19.10.2020.

10.   It is further submitted that, subsequently, by order dated
26.10.2020, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, cancelled the
selection and appointment of petitioner no. 4. Thereafter, similarly
worded orders dated 24.01.2021 and 27.01.2021 were passed in
respect of the other petitioners, whereby their respective
selections/candidatures were cancelled and appointment was
declined. The precise dates of the orders concerning each petitioner
shall be referred to from the record.
                                   5
                                                 WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

11.   The principal ground taken in the aforesaid orders was that
the result of the back-paper examination of the fourth semester of
the BTC course had been declared in the year 2019 and,
consequently, according to the respondents, the petitioners did not
possess the requisite qualification within the prescribed cut-off date
and were, therefore, ineligible for consideration in the recruitment
in question.

12.   A controversy subsequently arose with regard to discrepancies
between the details furnished in the application form and the
documents      produced   during   counselling.     To   rectify   such
discrepancies, the State Government issued Government Orders
dated 04.12.2020 and 05.03.2020, as well as a circular dated
31.03.2021. Under the said orders and circular, where there was an
increase in marks on account of scrutiny, re-evaluation or back-
paper results, as compared to the marks indicated in the application
form, such increase was not to be treated as an impediment to
granting appointment, and the increased marks were to be taken into
account for that purpose. The validity of the aforesaid Government
Order was upheld by the Supreme Court by judgment dated
08.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021, Jyoti
Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and others.

13.   Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in terms of
the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioners became eligible for
consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher,
notwithstanding their having initially been declared unsuccessful in
the BTC examination. It is submitted that the petitioners
subsequently appeared in the back-paper examination and were
declared successful therein, pursuant to which BTC certificates
were duly issued in their favour on 07.08.2019. Consequently, in
view of the specific stipulations contained in the aforesaid
                                  6
                                                  WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

Government Order, the petitioners were eligible to be considered
for appointment in the recruitment in question.

14.   Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that,
pursuant to the Government Order dated 05.03.2021, the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, proceeded to issue an appointment order
dated 12.03.2021, whereby appointment was accorded to the five
candidates named therein, including the petitioners. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioners submitted their respective joining and
commenced discharging their duties as Assistant Teachers at
different Primary Schools in District Ballia. The petitioners were
permitted to continue in service and were also paid their regular
salary.

15.   It is submitted that, after permitting the petitioners to enter
and continue in service for a considerable period, the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Ballia, surprisingly issued notices dated 24.03.2025, once
again calling in question their eligibility to participate in the
ATRE-2019 examination. By the said notices, the petitioners were
required to appear before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 28.03.2025
and explain their position in respect of the alleged deficiency in
their eligibility.

16.   It is submitted that the principal objection reflected in the
show-cause notice was that the BTC training certificates of the
petitioners had been issued on 07.08.2019, which was subsequent to
22.12.2018, i.e., the last date prescribed for submission of
applications pursuant to the recruitment process. The petitioners
appeared before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in response to the
aforesaid     notices   and   submitted   their     respective    written
representations, duly supported by relevant documents.

17.   Thereafter, by order dated 30.05.2025, the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Ballia, directed termination of the services of five
                                     7
                                                   WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

similarly situated employees, including the four petitioners herein.
Aggrieved by the said order, the four petitioners approached this
Court by filing Writ-A No. 8469 of 2025, Dileep Kumar Yadav v.
State of U.P. and 3 others. The said writ petition was finally
disposed of by order dated 18.08.2025, permitting the petitioners to
avail the remedy of filing an appeal/representation before the
Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj.

18.   In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioners
submitted their appeal/representation dated 25.08.2025 before the
Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. The
said authority, however, by the impugned order dated 29.05.2026,
rejected the appeal/representation preferred by the petitioners,
holding the same to be devoid of merit, and affirmed the order
whereby their services had been terminated. It is against the
aforesaid orders that the present writ petition has been instituted.

19.   The impugned orders further place reliance upon the
following judgments, which, according to the respondents, govern
the controversy in issue:-

(i) the judgment dated 09.06.2020 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.
4127 of 2020, Devendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others;

(ii) the judgment dated 24.03.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.
849 of 2021, Preeti Jatav and others v. State of U.P. and others; and

(iii) the judgment dated 15.05.2025 rendered by the Division Bench in
Special Appeal No. 350 of 2025, Preeti Jatav and others v. State of U.P.
and others.

20.   The aforesaid decisions have been relied upon by the
authorities while examining the eligibility of the petitioners and the
effect of declaration of their BTC back-paper results subsequent to
the last date prescribed for submission of the application forms.
                                      8
                                                      WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

21.   The impugned orders have been assailed, inter alia, on the
following grounds:

A. Because the impugned orders have been passed in an arbitrary,
discriminatory     and   legally   unsustainable   manner,     without    due
consideration of the material facts and circumstances relevant to the
petitioners’ cases.

B. Because the petitioners were duly selected through a regular
recruitment process and were thereafter appointed in accordance with
law. Having been validly appointed and permitted to continue in service,
their services could not have been terminated in the manner adopted by
the respondents, particularly in the absence of any proved misconduct
attributable to them. It is submitted that no allegation of misconduct
whatsoever has been levelled against the petitioners. The impugned
orders, therefore, suffer from a manifest non-application of mind to the
nature and status of the petitioners’ appointments.

C. Because no disciplinary proceedings of any nature have been initiated
against the petitioners. No charge-sheet was served upon them, nor was
any departmental inquiry conducted in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law. Consequently, the impugned orders, insofar as they
terminate the petitioners’ services without following the procedure
prescribed for such action, are vitiated by a violation of the settled
principles governing termination from service and the principles of
natural justice.

D. Because the impugned orders rely upon a report dated 08.12.2025,
purportedly submitted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, a copy of
which was never furnished to the petitioners. The petitioners were
thereby deprived of an effective opportunity to examine, controvert or
respond to the material relied upon against them. Reliance upon such
undisclosed material, without affording the petitioners an opportunity of
being heard, renders the decision-making process ex parte and contrary
to the fundamental requirements of natural justice.
                                     9
                                                    WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

E. Because the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, was fully cognizant of
the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the petitioners' eligibility
and selection at the time of their appointment. Indeed, the same authority
had earlier examined the matter while passing orders cancelling the
petitioners' selection/candidature, including the orders dated 26.10.2020,
24.01.2021 and 27.01.2021, and was thus in possession of the relevant
records and material pertaining to their qualification and eligibility. It is
submitted that the petitioners neither suppressed nor concealed any
material fact at any stage of the recruitment process, nor did they resort
to any misrepresentation, fraud or manipulation of documents for
securing their appointment. If, despite being fully apprised of the
relevant facts, the competent authorities proceeded to select and appoint
the petitioners and thereafter permitted them to discharge their duties and
receive salary, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for any error,
omission or lapse attributable to the respondents themselves. The
impugned orders, having failed to take into consideration these material
circumstances and having proceeded mechanically to terminate the
petitioners' services without any finding of fraud, misrepresentation or
concealment on their part, suffer from arbitrariness, non-application of
mind and consequential violation of the principles of fairness in
administrative action.

F. Because the impugned action of the respondents is ex facie contrary to
the departmental clarifications and Government Orders issued by the
State Government governing the recruitment in question. Pursuant to the
aforesaid Government Orders, candidates who had initially been
declared unsuccessful in the BTC examination were afforded an
opportunity to avail the remedies of scrutiny, re-evaluation and back-
paper, and the revised result, upon declaration, was expressly required to
be taken into consideration for determining their eligibility and
candidature. The petitioners had availed the opportunity so provided,
appeared in the back-paper examination and were thereafter declared
successful, whereupon their revised result and BTC certificates were
duly issued. The respondents, having proceeded to consider the
                                    10
                                                   WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

petitioners' candidature in the light of the aforesaid Government Orders
and having ultimately appointed them, could not subsequently disregard
the revised result and proceed on the basis of their initial unsuccessful
result. The impugned orders, having failed to give effect to the binding
departmental instructions and the applicable Government Orders, and
having proceeded on a premise contrary thereto, are consequently
vitiated by non-application of mind and are liable to be set aside.

G. Because similarly situated candidates, namely, Atul Kumar Pandey
and Shailpi Singh, who are serving as Assistant Teachers in District
Aligarh and District Kannauj, respectively, had also initially been
declared unsuccessful in the BTC examination and were subsequently
declared successful on the basis of their back-paper results. Their
candidature and appointments have nevertheless been accepted and they
have been permitted to continue in service.

22.   The petitioners, being similarly circumstanced, could not have
been singled out for adverse treatment by the respondents without
any distinguishing circumstance having been brought on record.
The differential treatment meted out to the petitioners, despite their
cases being founded upon an identical factual and legal matrix, is
manifestly discriminatory and violative of the principle of equality
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

23.   In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and having
regard to the aforesaid grounds, the impugned orders cannot be
sustained in law and are, accordingly, liable to be set aside.

24.   Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Basic Shiksha
Parishad, on the other hand, submits that, for the purpose of direct
recruitment against 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers, the
Government issued guidelines dated 01.12.2018. Paragraph 4(1)
thereof specifically provided that candidates who had passed the
requisite /BTC training could apply for the Teachers Selection
Examination, 2019. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued
                                 11
                                              WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

on 05.12.2018, prescribing the period for registration from
06.12.2018 to 22.12.2018 up to 6:00 p.m.

25.   It is submitted that, subsequently, discrepancies were noticed
in the marks obtained, dates of issuance and roll numbers reflected
in the marksheets relating to the fourth semester of the BTC training
examination furnished by the petitioners. Consequently, show-cause
notices were issued to them, requiring them to produce their
original BTC training certificates and to explain the discrepancies
noticed in the documents submitted by them. According to the
respondents, the petitioners had obtained appointment by
suppressing material facts and by relying upon documents which
did not establish possession of the requisite qualification as on the
last date prescribed for submission of applications. Their
appointments, therefore, were contrary to the terms and conditions
governing the Teachers Selection Examination, 2019.

26.   Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 4 was issued an
appointment letter on 16.10.2020 and his name appeared at Serial
No. 418 in the list of selected candidates. However, upon
verification of his educational credentials, it was found that he had
not successfully completed the fourth semester of the BTC training
examination within the prescribed period. Consequently, his
selection was cancelled by order dated 24.01.2021. Similarly,
petitioner No. 1 had also failed in the fourth semester of the BTC
training examination, 2018, and his selection was accordingly
cancelled by order dated 24.01.2021. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had
likewise failed in the fourth semester BTC examination, 2018, and
their selections were cancelled by orders dated 22.01.2021 and
27.01.2021, respectively.

27.   It is further submitted that the issue involved in the present
petitions is no longer res integra. Learned counsel has placed
                                  12
                                                 WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.4127 of
2020, Devendra Singh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and others, as
well as Writ-A No.849 of 2021, Preeti Jatave and 6 Others v. State
of U.P. and 6 Others, which were dismissed by order dated
24.03.2025.

28.   Learned counsel further submits that the advertisement itself
made it unequivocally clear that the last date for submission of
applications was 22.12.2018. The petitioners, however, relied upon
marksheets of the fourth semester of the BTC examination which
had been issued subsequent to the said cut-off date. Thus, the
documents relied upon by the petitioners themselves demonstrate
that they had not acquired the requisite qualification by 22.12.2018.
The   subsequent     issuance   of      the   marksheets    could    not
retrospectively confer eligibility upon the petitioners as on the last
date prescribed in the advertisement.

29.   It is, therefore, contended that, on the crucial date, namely,
22.12.2018, the petitioners did not possess the requisite
qualification and were consequently ineligible to participate in the
selection process. Their subsequent selection and appointment,
being contrary to the express terms of the advertisement, were liable
to be cancelled. The appeals preferred by the petitioners against the
orders of cancellation were, accordingly, rejected by respondent No.
3.

30.   Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in Anjali Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 Others,
Writ-A No.9826 of 2021, decided on 05.10.2021, wherein,
according to him, a similar controversy arose and the writ petition
was dismissed. It is submitted that this Court, while dismissing the
said petition, declined to grant relief to a candidate who did not
                                   13
                                                      WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

possess the requisite qualification within the period prescribed
under the advertisement.

31.   Having bestowed anxious consideration upon the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the material brought on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the challenge laid by the petitioners to the
impugned orders does not merit acceptance.

32.   The foundational fact which remains undisputed is that, on the
last date prescribed for submission of applications for the
recruitment in question, the petitioners had not successfully
completed the requisite BTC training. Their BTC qualification was
acquired only upon declaration of the result of the back-paper
examination and issuance of the consequential certificates on
07.08.2019.    The    subsequent        acquisition     of    the   requisite
qualification, however bona fide it may have been, cannot efface the
eligibility requirement as it existed on the determinative date
prescribed under the recruitment notification.

33.   The circumstance that the petitioners disclosed their marks
correctly in the application forms, or that their applications were
accepted and admit cards were subsequently issued, cannot, by
itself, confer an indefeasible right of appointment upon candidates
who did not possess the prescribed qualification within the
stipulated time. An erroneous acceptance of an application, issuance
of an admit card, declaration of result, or even subsequent
appointment cannot operate as an estoppel against the competent
authority in the matter of enforcement of the statutory eligibility
conditions. Eligibility is required to be tested in accordance with the
governing recruitment conditions and not by the consequences
flowing from an administrative omission or error.
                                   14
                                                 WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

34.   Equally, the subsequent issuance of appointment orders and
the petitioners' continuance in service cannot convert an otherwise
ineligible candidature into a legally valid one. The doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to perpetuate an
appointment which is contrary to the prescribed eligibility
conditions, nor can the plea of long continuance in service furnish
an independent source of eligibility where the foundational
qualification was absent at the relevant stage of recruitment.

35.   The reliance placed by the petitioners upon the Government
Orders concerning scrutiny, re-evaluation and back-paper results
does not advance their case beyond the permissible ambit of those
instructions. Such orders cannot be construed as obliterating the
essential eligibility condition prescribed for participation in the
recruitment process unless they expressly and unambiguously
provide that a qualification acquired after the prescribed cut-off date
would relate back to the date of the original application. No such
legal consequence can be inferred merely from the fact that the
revised result was subsequently taken into consideration.

36.   The plea of discrimination based upon the continuance of
certain other persons said to be similarly situated is also of no avail.
Article 14 of the Constitution does not countenance the invocation
of negative equality. An illegality, if any, committed in favour of
another candidate cannot furnish a juridical foundation for claiming
repetition of the same illegality. Before a plea of discrimination can
succeed, the petitioner must establish parity in all material
particulars and a corresponding legal entitlement; mere similarity of
circumstances, divorced from the governing eligibility conditions, is
insufficient.

37.   The contention that the petitioners could be removed only
after institution and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is
                                   15
                                               WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

equally misconceived. The action impugned herein is not founded
upon any allegation of misconduct committed by the petitioners in
the course of their service. The termination of their engagement
proceeds from the discovery that the petitioners did not satisfy the
prescribed eligibility condition at the relevant stage of recruitment.
Where the very foundation of appointment is found to be legally
defective, the question of conducting a disciplinary enquiry for
establishing misconduct does not arise merely because the
candidates had, in the meantime, entered service.

38.   This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners were
permitted to discharge duties and were paid salary for a
considerable period. Such circumstances undoubtedly evoke
sympathy; however, equitable considerations cannot be permitted to
eclipse the statutory requirements governing public employment.
The constitutional obligation to maintain purity, transparency and
uniformity in public recruitment must prevail over individual
equities founded upon an appointment which cannot be sustained
against the governing eligibility criteria.

39.   Consequently, this Court finds no manifest illegality,
jurisdictional infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders
warranting interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have
failed to establish any enforceable legal right to continue in service
notwithstanding the absence of the requisite qualification on the
material date.

40.   The controversy in question has been dealt in the case of
Preeti Jatave And 6 Others vs. State of U.P. And 6 Others, in Writ A
No.849 of 2021, decided on 24.03.2025, wherein the Court has
dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the petitioners
were neither qualified by last date of submission of form nor they
                                  16
                                                WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

are entitled for benefit of any negative quality and argument of
arbitrariness on basis of negative quality. In the aforesaid case of
Preeti Jatave (supra), the petitioners therein were not qualified at the
time of filling the form and had passed the relevant examination by
giving back paper.

41.   Against the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge,
Special Appeal No.350 of 2025 (Preeti Jatave And 5 Others vs.
State of U.P. And 7 Others), was filed, which has been dismissed
vide order dated 15.05.2025. In the Special Appeal the Government
order dated 05.03.2021 merely explains that the applicants who
have made application would not be prejudiced on account of any
act of the examination body/University later in point of time. This
action also cannot be construed as a decision extending the last date
fixed for making of the application form.

42.   Similarly, in the case of Prateeksha Kumari vs. State of U.P.
And 3 Others, in Writ A No.19023 of 2021, the writ petition was
dismissed. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner was
admittedly failed and had passed after giving back paper. Hence, the
petitioner was not qualified as on last date of submission of the
form, and it was only after the increase in marks after giving back
paper that the petitioner had passed the said examination which was
much after the last of submission of form.

43.   In the case of Anjali Singh vs. State of U.P. and 8 Others,
decided in Writ A No. 9826 of 2021, the petitioner had similarly
passed the BTC examination after appearing in the back paper in
the year 2019, and had taken the plea that, as per the Government
Order dated 05.03.2021, any change in the marks obtained in the
back paper was liable to be taken note of. However, the Court
dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:-
                                                                             17
                                                                                              WRIA No. - 11062 of 2026

                                        “Law is settled that eligibility of a candidate for appointment is to be seen
                                        with reference to the last date fixed for making of application. On the last
                                        date of making application i.e. 22.12.2018, petitioner was not possessing
                                        qualification of BTC. Merely because she has subsequently cleared the
                                        back paper would not mean that her eligibility from a retrospective date
                                        would stand revived. No exception can be taken if her claim is denied for
                                        such reasons.

                                        Dismissed accordingly.”

                            44.          Similarly in the case of Vinti Pandey vs. State of U.P. And 3
                            Others in Writ A No.1445 of 2021, the writ petition was dismissed
                            vide order dated 29.10.2021 with nearly similar observations.
                            Against the aforesaid order Special Appeal No.488 of 2022 (Basic
                            Education Board U.P. Prayagraj And Another vs. Vinti Pandey And
                            2 Others) was also dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2022.

                            45.          Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
                            The impugned orders dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha
                            Adhikari, Ballia, and order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the
                            Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, are
                            upheld. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.




                                                                                  (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

                            September 8, 2026
                            Rahul Goswami




Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad