High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned C.S.C., Sri K. Shahi and Sri Mohit Dixit, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This Court has passed a very detailed interim order on 06.12.2023 which is expressing all relevant facts, therefore, said order is quoted in its entirety :- “1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 5 and 6.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad whereby petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled with effect from the date of the appointment.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner has been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at District Farrukhabad vide appointment order dated 10.03.2019 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad. After the aforesaid appointment, petitioner’s documents submitted at the time of her appointment were sent for verification.

4. Petitioner has passed out Secondary School Examination 2005, Senior School Certificate Examination 2007, Bachelor of Commerce Examination 2011 and B.T.C. Examination 2016 and in all the certificates issued to the petitioner, her name is Bhanu Pandey, daughter of Sri Chandra Dhar Pandey and Smt. Suman Pandey. Petitioner while filling the form of the U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2015 inadvertently entered her name as Bhanu Priya Pandey and accordingly she was issued certificate of T.E.T. in the name of Bhanu Priya Pandey.

5. Petitioner submitted an application on 30.06.2017/06.07.2017 to Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad and Principal, D.I.E.T., Farrukhabad for correcting her name in U.P. T.E.T. Certificate by replacing “Bhanu Priya Pandey” with “Bhanu Pandey”.

6. Petitioner’s application for correction of her name in T.E.T. certificate remained pending and in the meantime, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at District Farrukhabad.

7. Since petitioner was not paid salary of the post of Assistant Teacher, she filed Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 and during pendency of the said petition, petitioner’s name was corrected in her T.E.T. certificate by replacing “Bhanu Priya Pandey” with “Bhanu Pandey” and Registrar, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj vide his letter dated 10.03.2021 forwarded corrected copy of the certificate to Principal, D.I.E.T., Farrukhabad with a direction to issue the corrected copy of U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2015 certificate. Since petitioner’s certificate was corrected by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj, therefore, Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 was finally disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2022 with a direction to District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation.

8. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad in compliance of order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 passed an order on 06.04.2023 wherein he recorded a finding that since as per Government Orders dated 24.12.2014 and 09.01.2014 only clerical errors and inadvertent mistakes can be corrected in the T.E.T. certificate and marksheet whereas in the matter of petitioner, her name has been changed, therefore, the said correction in the name of the petitioner in the T.E.T. certificate is not in accordance with law. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad after recording the aforesaid finding rejected the case of the petitioner for payment of salary of the post of Assistant Teacher.

9. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad by filing Writ-A No. 5861 of 2023. This court after hearing the parties’ counsels including learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj passed an interim order on 24.07.2023 whereby operation and enforcement of the order dated 06.04.2023 has been stayed with a further direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to work on her post and to pay her salary. The order dated 24.07.2023 is extracted as under: “1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.5 and 6.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner appeared in the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2015 and after being declared successful she was issued a certificate and in the said certificate due to inadvertent mistake name of the petitioner was mentioned as Bhanu Priya Pandey though her correct name is Bhanu Pandey. Name of the petitioner all along in her all testimonials is Bhanu Pandey and she was also issued appointment letter on 10.03.2019 in which her name has been shown as Bhanu Pandey.

3. Petitioner pursuant to her appointment submitted joining on the post of Assistant Teacher but when her testimonials were sent for verification then the aforesaid mistake transpired and salary of the petitioner on that basis was not paid.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed an application to Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj for correction of her name in the T.E.T. certificate.

5. Since no action was taken on the part of the respondents as such petitioner filed Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 and during the course of arguments in the said writ petition District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad, apprised the court that the mistake in the certificate of the petitioner has been rectified by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj and on the said basis the aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2022 with a direction to District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad to pass appropriate order in respect of payment of salary to the petitioner.

6. Later on the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj directed the petitioner to return the corrected copy of the certificate on the ground that the said correction has been made though there is no provision for making such correction.

7. Now District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad, in compliance of order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 has passed the order on 06.04.2023 wherein he has recorded a finding that the correction made in the T.E.T. certificate of the petitioner does not come in the ambit of clerical error and therefore, the said correction is liable to be cancelled and accordingly petitioner is not entitled for payment of salary. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad.

8. On the last date learned Standing Counsel was directed to take complete instructions in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has submitted that as per the guidelines issued in respect of correction in T.E.T. certificates, only clerical mistakes and unintended mistakes can be corrected but the correction which has been made in the certificate of the petitioner in fact changes her entire name, therefore, the said correction is not permissible under law.

9. I have considered submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioner as well as submission made by learned Standing Counsel.

10. I find that there is provision for making corrections in the T.E.T. certificate of a candidate in respect of clerical errors and unintended mistakes committed by the candidate while filling up the form. On the basis of aforesaid provision the name of petitioner has been corrected from Bhanu Priya Pandey to Bhanu Pandey. All the testimonials of the petitioner carry her name as Bhanu Pandey. Even the appointment letter which was issued to the petitioner mentions her name as Bhanu Pandey.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, mentioning 'Priya' in between 'Bhanu' and 'Pandey', prima facie comes under unintended mistake committed by the petitioner.

12. Matter requires consideration.

13. Let counter affidavit be filed by learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 within four weeks. Two weeks thereafter shall be available to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

14. Till further orders of this Court operation and enforcement of impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad shall remain stayed and respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work on her post and to pay her salary regularly.”

10. From bare perusal of the order dated 24.07.2023, it clearly comes out that learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj did not inform the court that correction made in the name of petitioner in her T.E.T. certificate has been cancelled by a Committee. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions only submitted before the court that the correction made in the name of the petitioner in T.E.T. certificate is not permissible as the mistake in the name does not fall in the category of clerical mistake or unintended mistake.

11. This court in its order dated 24.07.2023 has recorded a prima-facie finding that mistake in the name of petitioner comes within the ambit of unintended mistake and thereby this court has stayed the operation and enforcement of the order dated 06.04.2023 and further directed to pay salary to the petitioner.

12. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad instead of complying the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 5861 of 2023 has passed an order on 16.11.2023 whereby appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that correction made in the T.E.T. certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled by a Committee of Examination Regulatory Authority on 04.04.2023 and the said decision has been communicated to Principal, D.I.E.T., Rajlamai, Farrukhabad by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj vide his letter dated 07.07.2023.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the correction made in the name of the petitioner in her T.E.T. certificate has been cancelled by the Committee of Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj without affording her any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that even the decision of the Committee taken on 04.04.2023 at no point of time has ever been communicated to the petitioner.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the matter of the petitioner is only in respect of correction of her name in the T.E.T. certificate but there is no allegation that petitioner has not appeared and has not passed out the T.E.T. Examination. It is also not the allegation that petitioner has used certificate issued to some other person for securing her appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and till date, nobody else has claimed that the T.E.T. certificate submitted by the petitioner for her appointment is his certificate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant cancellation of petitioner’s appointment, therefore, petitioner is entitled for interim protection by this court.

15. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and prima-facie I find that name of the petitioner in T.E.T. certificate was corrected by the Examination Regulatory Authority but later on without affording her any opportunity of hearing, the said correction has been cancelled. This court further finds that learned Standing Counsel at the time of hearing of Writ- A No. 5861 of 2023 was granted time to take instructions from the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj but at the time of passing of order dated 24.07.2023 in Writ-A No. 5861 of 2023, learned Standing Counsel did not inform regarding any decision taken by the Committee of Examination Regulatory Authority on 04.04.2023 whereby correction made in the name of the petitioner in her T.E.T. certificate has been cancelled, therefore, it appears that the entire exercise has been carried out behind the back of the petitioner.

16. This court, prima-facie is also of the view that there is no allegation against the petitioner that she has not appeared and has not passed out the T.E.T. Examination. The only issue involved in the matter is in respect of permissibility of correction in the name of the petitioner in the T.E.T. certificate.

17. Matter requires consideration.

18. Let a Counter-Affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of six weeks. Two weeks thereafter shall be available to the petitioner for filing Rejoinder-Affidavit.

19. List this matter immediately after expiry of the period of eight weeks.

20. Till the next date of listing, operation and enforcement of the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad shall remain stayed. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad is directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Garhiya, Havatpur, Block Shamsabad, District Farrukhabad and to pay her current salary. ”

3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, an order dated 07.07.2023 is placed on record which is also referred in above referred interim order that since correction in certificate of TET, so far as name of petitioner is concerned, was made by an unauthorized Authority who has no power as well as correction made was not in terms of Government Order dated 09.01.2014, therefore, corrected TET certificate was cancelled.

4. It is not disputed that petitioner has filed an application within 3 years and Court has confronted learned counsel for respondents that following paragraph of said G.O. that it does not bar if contingencies are brought on record, to correct the name on certificate. In this regard, Court also takes note that there is no dispute that petitioner’s name in High School certificate as well as Intermediate certificate is “Bhanu Pandey” whereas in TET certificate, probably, on a wrong information of petitioner, name is “Bhanu Priya Pandey” and, therefore, a correction was made to delete “Priya” :- पररकक चनयकमक पकधधककरर, “2. सचचव, उ०प० इलकहकबकद कक ओर सस चशकक पकततक पररकक उतररर करनस पर समबननधत अभयरर कक उतर पदसश पकततक पमकर पत चनररत चकयक जकयसरक और बकद मम उसकक पचवचषयय मम चक पमकर पत मम ऐसर रलत पचवचष आन ककई शशचद चकयक जकयसरक लकइन आवसदन मम समबननधत अभयरर कक अचवचररत असकवधकनर कस ककरर कक रई हक चनयमकमक पकधधककरर दकरक उसर पररकक । यह शशचद सचचव, , बशतर चनयकमक पकधधककरर दकरक नसरचत मम कक जक सकस रर, जबचक अभयरर नस ससबसधधत पररकक कस पमकर पत चतधर सस तरन वरर कस कक पररकक अऩदर हर आन लकईऩ आवसदन मम अचवचकररत धलचपककय भभल कक और धयकन आकक ष करतस हहए ससबसधधत पकचकयर चशकक एवस पचशकर सससरकन कक तशचट कस ससशकधन हसतश पकररनक पत पसतशत कर चदयक हक और उसकक पचत पसजरकक त/ चनयकमक पकधधककरर उ०प० इलकहकबकद कक भर पसचरत कक हक। सपरड पकसट सस सचचव, ” चनररमन कक पररकक धजलक

5. Aforesaid paragraph contemplates such contingencies and correction could be made only by the Secretary, U.P. Examination Regulatory Authority and by no other authority.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, order dated 07.07.2023 is correct to the extent that earlier correction was not made by appropriate Authority, however, instead of cancelling corrected TET certificate, said authority ought to have decided it afresh whether under said circular, correction could be made out or not.

7. In aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 07.07.2023 is set aside and matter is remitted back to Secretary, U.P. Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj to pass a fresh order considering the application filed by petitioner for purpose of correcting the name after taking note that her name as mentioned in High School certificate and Intermediate certificate within 6 weeks and its legal consequence shall follow.

8. In pursuance of above order, impugned order dated 06.04.2023 is also set aside, however, concerned respondents will be at liberty to pass a fresh order after considering application of petitioner for correction of name.

9. Both writ petitions are disposed of. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Sinha_N. NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned C.S.C., Sri K. Shahi and Sri Mohit Dixit, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This Court has passed a very detailed interim order on 06.12.2023 which is expressing all relevant facts, therefore, said order is quoted in its entirety :- “1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 5 and 6.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad whereby petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled with effect from the date of the appointment.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner has been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at District Farrukhabad vide appointment order dated 10.03.2019 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad. After the aforesaid appointment, petitioner’s documents submitted at the time of her appointment were sent for verification.

4. Petitioner has passed out Secondary School Examination 2005, Senior School Certificate Examination 2007, Bachelor of Commerce Examination 2011 and B.T.C. Examination 2016 and in all the certificates issued to the petitioner, her name is Bhanu Pandey, daughter of Sri Chandra Dhar Pandey and Smt. Suman Pandey. Petitioner while filling the form of the U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2015 inadvertently entered her name as Bhanu Priya Pandey and accordingly she was issued certificate of T.E.T. in the name of Bhanu Priya Pandey.

5. Petitioner submitted an application on 30.06.2017/06.07.2017 to Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad and Principal, D.I.E.T., Farrukhabad for correcting her name in U.P. T.E.T. Certificate by replacing “Bhanu Priya Pandey” with “Bhanu Pandey”.

6. Petitioner’s application for correction of her name in T.E.T. certificate remained pending and in the meantime, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School at District Farrukhabad.

7. Since petitioner was not paid salary of the post of Assistant Teacher, she filed Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 and during pendency of the said petition, petitioner’s name was corrected in her T.E.T. certificate by replacing “Bhanu Priya Pandey” with “Bhanu Pandey” and Registrar, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj vide his letter dated 10.03.2021 forwarded corrected copy of the certificate to Principal, D.I.E.T., Farrukhabad with a direction to issue the corrected copy of U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2015 certificate. Since petitioner’s certificate was corrected by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj, therefore, Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 was finally disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2022 with a direction to District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation.

8. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad in compliance of order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 passed an order on 06.04.2023 wherein he recorded a finding that since as per Government Orders dated 24.12.2014 and 09.01.2014 only clerical errors and inadvertent mistakes can be corrected in the T.E.T. certificate and marksheet whereas in the matter of petitioner, her name has been changed, therefore, the said correction in the name of the petitioner in the T.E.T. certificate is not in accordance with law. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad after recording the aforesaid finding rejected the case of the petitioner for payment of salary of the post of Assistant Teacher.

9. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad by filing Writ-A No. 5861 of 2023. This court after hearing the parties’ counsels including learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj passed an interim order on 24.07.2023 whereby operation and enforcement of the order dated 06.04.2023 has been stayed with a further direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to work on her post and to pay her salary. The order dated 24.07.2023 is extracted as under: “1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.5 and 6.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner appeared in the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test in the year 2015 and after being declared successful she was issued a certificate and in the said certificate due to inadvertent mistake name of the petitioner was mentioned as Bhanu Priya Pandey though her correct name is Bhanu Pandey. Name of the petitioner all along in her all testimonials is Bhanu Pandey and she was also issued appointment letter on 10.03.2019 in which her name has been shown as Bhanu Pandey.

3. Petitioner pursuant to her appointment submitted joining on the post of Assistant Teacher but when her testimonials were sent for verification then the aforesaid mistake transpired and salary of the petitioner on that basis was not paid.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed an application to Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj for correction of her name in the T.E.T. certificate.

5. Since no action was taken on the part of the respondents as such petitioner filed Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 and during the course of arguments in the said writ petition District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad, apprised the court that the mistake in the certificate of the petitioner has been rectified by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj and on the said basis the aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2022 with a direction to District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad to pass appropriate order in respect of payment of salary to the petitioner.

6. Later on the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj directed the petitioner to return the corrected copy of the certificate on the ground that the said correction has been made though there is no provision for making such correction.

7. Now District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad, in compliance of order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 4966 of 2021 has passed the order on 06.04.2023 wherein he has recorded a finding that the correction made in the T.E.T. certificate of the petitioner does not come in the ambit of clerical error and therefore, the said correction is liable to be cancelled and accordingly petitioner is not entitled for payment of salary. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad.

8. On the last date learned Standing Counsel was directed to take complete instructions in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has submitted that as per the guidelines issued in respect of correction in T.E.T. certificates, only clerical mistakes and unintended mistakes can be corrected but the correction which has been made in the certificate of the petitioner in fact changes her entire name, therefore, the said correction is not permissible under law.

9. I have considered submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioner as well as submission made by learned Standing Counsel.

10. I find that there is provision for making corrections in the T.E.T. certificate of a candidate in respect of clerical errors and unintended mistakes committed by the candidate while filling up the form. On the basis of aforesaid provision the name of petitioner has been corrected from Bhanu Priya Pandey to Bhanu Pandey. All the testimonials of the petitioner carry her name as Bhanu Pandey. Even the appointment letter which was issued to the petitioner mentions her name as Bhanu Pandey.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, mentioning 'Priya' in between 'Bhanu' and 'Pandey', prima facie comes under unintended mistake committed by the petitioner.

12. Matter requires consideration.

13. Let counter affidavit be filed by learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 within four weeks. Two weeks thereafter shall be available to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

14. Till further orders of this Court operation and enforcement of impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad shall remain stayed and respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work on her post and to pay her salary regularly.”

10. From bare perusal of the order dated 24.07.2023, it clearly comes out that learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj did not inform the court that correction made in the name of petitioner in her T.E.T. certificate has been cancelled by a Committee. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions only submitted before the court that the correction made in the name of the petitioner in T.E.T. certificate is not permissible as the mistake in the name does not fall in the category of clerical mistake or unintended mistake.

11. This court in its order dated 24.07.2023 has recorded a prima-facie finding that mistake in the name of petitioner comes within the ambit of unintended mistake and thereby this court has stayed the operation and enforcement of the order dated 06.04.2023 and further directed to pay salary to the petitioner.

12. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad instead of complying the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 5861 of 2023 has passed an order on 16.11.2023 whereby appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that correction made in the T.E.T. certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled by a Committee of Examination Regulatory Authority on 04.04.2023 and the said decision has been communicated to Principal, D.I.E.T., Rajlamai, Farrukhabad by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj vide his letter dated 07.07.2023.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the correction made in the name of the petitioner in her T.E.T. certificate has been cancelled by the Committee of Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj without affording her any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that even the decision of the Committee taken on 04.04.2023 at no point of time has ever been communicated to the petitioner.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the matter of the petitioner is only in respect of correction of her name in the T.E.T. certificate but there is no allegation that petitioner has not appeared and has not passed out the T.E.T. Examination. It is also not the allegation that petitioner has used certificate issued to some other person for securing her appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and till date, nobody else has claimed that the T.E.T. certificate submitted by the petitioner for her appointment is his certificate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant cancellation of petitioner’s appointment, therefore, petitioner is entitled for interim protection by this court.

15. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and prima-facie I find that name of the petitioner in T.E.T. certificate was corrected by the Examination Regulatory Authority but later on without affording her any opportunity of hearing, the said correction has been cancelled. This court further finds that learned Standing Counsel at the time of hearing of Writ- A No. 5861 of 2023 was granted time to take instructions from the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj but at the time of passing of order dated 24.07.2023 in Writ-A No. 5861 of 2023, learned Standing Counsel did not inform regarding any decision taken by the Committee of Examination Regulatory Authority on 04.04.2023 whereby correction made in the name of the petitioner in her T.E.T. certificate has been cancelled, therefore, it appears that the entire exercise has been carried out behind the back of the petitioner.

16. This court, prima-facie is also of the view that there is no allegation against the petitioner that she has not appeared and has not passed out the T.E.T. Examination. The only issue involved in the matter is in respect of permissibility of correction in the name of the petitioner in the T.E.T. certificate.

17. Matter requires consideration.

18. Let a Counter-Affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of six weeks. Two weeks thereafter shall be available to the petitioner for filing Rejoinder-Affidavit.

19. List this matter immediately after expiry of the period of eight weeks.

20. Till the next date of listing, operation and enforcement of the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad shall remain stayed. The District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad is directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Garhiya, Havatpur, Block Shamsabad, District Farrukhabad and to pay her current salary. ”

3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, an order dated 07.07.2023 is placed on record which is also referred in above referred interim order that since correction in certificate of TET, so far as name of petitioner is concerned, was made by an unauthorized Authority who has no power as well as correction made was not in terms of Government Order dated 09.01.2014, therefore, corrected TET certificate was cancelled.

4. It is not disputed that petitioner has filed an application within 3 years and Court has confronted learned counsel for respondents that following paragraph of said G.O. that it does not bar if contingencies are brought on record, to correct the name on certificate. In this regard, Court also takes note that there is no dispute that petitioner’s name in High School certificate as well as Intermediate certificate is “Bhanu Pandey” whereas in TET certificate, probably, on a wrong information of petitioner, name is “Bhanu Priya Pandey” and, therefore, a correction was made to delete “Priya” :- पररकक चनयकमक पकधधककरर, “2. सचचव, उ०प० इलकहकबकद कक ओर सस चशकक पकततक पररकक उतररर करनस पर समबननधत अभयरर कक उतर पदसश पकततक पमकर पत चनररत चकयक जकयसरक और बकद मम उसकक पचवचषयय मम चक पमकर पत मम ऐसर रलत पचवचष आन ककई शशचद चकयक जकयसरक लकइन आवसदन मम समबननधत अभयरर कक अचवचररत असकवधकनर कस ककरर कक रई हक चनयमकमक पकधधककरर दकरक उसर पररकक । यह शशचद सचचव, , बशतर चनयकमक पकधधककरर दकरक नसरचत मम कक जक सकस रर, जबचक अभयरर नस ससबसधधत पररकक कस पमकर पत चतधर सस तरन वरर कस कक पररकक अऩदर हर आन लकईऩ आवसदन मम अचवचकररत धलचपककय भभल कक और धयकन आकक ष करतस हहए ससबसधधत पकचकयर चशकक एवस पचशकर सससरकन कक तशचट कस ससशकधन हसतश पकररनक पत पसतशत कर चदयक हक और उसकक पचत पसजरकक त/ चनयकमक पकधधककरर उ०प० इलकहकबकद कक भर पसचरत कक हक। सपरड पकसट सस सचचव, ” चनररमन कक पररकक धजलक

5. Aforesaid paragraph contemplates such contingencies and correction could be made only by the Secretary, U.P. Examination Regulatory Authority and by no other authority.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, order dated 07.07.2023 is correct to the extent that earlier correction was not made by appropriate Authority, however, instead of cancelling corrected TET certificate, said authority ought to have decided it afresh whether under said circular, correction could be made out or not.

7. In aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 07.07.2023 is set aside and matter is remitted back to Secretary, U.P. Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj to pass a fresh order considering the application filed by petitioner for purpose of correcting the name after taking note that her name as mentioned in High School certificate and Intermediate certificate within 6 weeks and its legal consequence shall follow.

8. In pursuance of above order, impugned order dated 06.04.2023 is also set aside, however, concerned respondents will be at liberty to pass a fresh order after considering application of petitioner for correction of name.

9. Both writ petitions are disposed of. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Sinha_N. NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad