Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

2. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.11.2006 passed by the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, Lucknow rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner for admission in Special B.T.C. Course, 2004. There are several grounds indicated and the main ground is that the Petitioner had reflected his theory and practical marks of B.Ed. examination wrongly in the application form which had been tendered for the said course. It has been further indicated in the order that since the Petitioner has obtained his B.Ed. degree from an institution not recognised to conduct such a course by the N.C.T.E., therefore the candidature was not acceptable.

3. The Petitioners candidature was not being considered and as such he filed a representation which was not taken notice of as a result thereof a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 78942 of 2005 was filed by the Petitioner which was disposed on 4.1.2006 calling upon the Director, S.C.E.R.T. Lucknow to decide the claim of the Petitioner. Thus the claim of the Petitioner became subjudice way back in 2005 itself.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the grounds taken for rejection are untenable inasmuch as the Petitioner had sent his application form on 13.2.2004. The last date for acceptance of such form was 15.3.2004. The Petitioner discovered the said error in reflecting the marks and accordingly he filed an application before the authorities on 1.3.2004 making a request that the said error as reflected in the application form of the Petitioner be corrected accordingly.

5. The acceptance of the said letter has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that thereafter the Respondents on their own conducted an enquiry by raising queries from Bundelkhand University, Jhansi to verify the correctness of the claim of the Petitioner and after having received the said verification report there was no occasion for the authorities to have rejected the claim of the Petitioner.

7. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that according to the terms and conditions of the Advertisement once the Petitioner had filled up the application form he was not entitled to resile back and that error could be made basis for rejection of the application. He submits that the inquiry which was made later on is of no consequence keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Advertisement and further also that the degree obtained from an institution which was not recognised for the purpose of conducting a B.Ed. course by the N.C.T.E.

8. The issue relating to recognition of the Institution by the N.C.T.E. does not arise in the present case as the Petitioner has obtained his degree in the year 1994 whereas at that point of time the N.C.T.E. Act was not applicable. The session in which the Petitioner pursued his course preceded the enforcement of the N.C.T.E. Act. It is not disputed that the institution from where the B.Ed. degree was obtained is affiliated to Bundelkhand University. In view of this the aforesaid ground taken in the impugned order is unsustainable. Moreover this issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2009 (10) ADJ 232 : 2009 (1) AWC 769. [LQ/AllHC/2009/5]

9. The second ground taken is that the Petitioner had not reflected the correct marks in his application form. Suffice it to state that it was a mere human error and it was due to an inadvertent mistake that the Petitioner had reflected his incorrect marks. Apart from this it was not done with an intention to gain anything. The Petitioner had wrongly reflected his marks in his application form as 46.60% in theory and 64% in practical whereas he had more marks, namely 70.2% in theory and 90% in practical respectively. It is, therefore, clear that there was no intention to gain anything from the authorities. The authorities after having received the request of the Petitioner, proceeded to enquire into the correctness of the said claim of the Petitioner and apart from this the communications, which have been appended as Annexures 11 and 13 to the writ petition further clarify the facts with regard to the candidature of the Petitioner, his centre of examination and the percentage of marks in B.Ed. examinations. After having received the said communications nothing remains to be verified by the Respondents.

10. In view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove both the reasons as disclosed in the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 30.10.2006/1.11.2006 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Director to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.