As per case facts, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Shikshya Sahayak. Subsequently, a letter informed her that her selection was wrong due to incorrect mark calculation during the ... selection process, leading to her disengagement. She had challenged previous attempts to disengage her, resulting in an interim order allowing her to continue. An enquiry confirmed the error, stating her engagement was illegal due to incorrect B.Ed marks. The petitioner challenged her disengagement, arguing that she submitted all genuine documents, which were verified by the authorities, and she had served for a significant period without any adverse remarks. She contended that the authorities are estopped from disengaging her for their own mistake. The question arose whether the disengagement of the petitioner, after a considerable period, based on the selection authorities' erroneous calculation of her marks, is sustainable under law. Finally, the Court held that without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner, the authorities are estopped from disengaging her for their own error. The law does not permit authorities to benefit from their own wrong. The disengagement order was quashed, and the petitioner's continuation in service was affirmed, with a direction for her to resume work.