Reetesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
- Neutral2025 INSC 1031
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where a court has issued an order setting a cutoff date for filing objections to examination questions, applicants who file objections after that cutoff date are barred from relief, even if they later claim the objection was timely filed but not posted by court registry due to inadvertence. 2. Where a court has directed re-evaluation of an examination limited to applicants who had approached the court by a specified date, applicants whose applications were pending as of that date but were rejected by the registry as "totally misconceived" before the re-evaluation order are entitled to the benefit of the re-evaluation order if the registry's rejection was procedurally improper. 3. Where a court has directed re-evaluation of specific examination questions based on a determination that certain answers were incorrect, applicants who performed worse under the corrected answers cannot claim grace marks to offset the reduction in their scores.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable 2025 INSC 1031 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application No. 1306 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12069 of 2024
Reetesh Kumar Singh & Ors. …Appellants/ Applicants Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents With Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12070-74 of 2024 With Miscellaneous Application No. 1308 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12075 of 2024 With Miscellaneous Application No. 1309 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12076 of 2024 And Miscellaneous Application No.1431 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No.5503 of 2025
ORDER
Signature Not Verified 1. These MAs are filed in a batch of appeals Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.08.23 13:26:58 IST Reason: which dealt with the examination conducted by the
Page 1 of 6 M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc. Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection
Commission (hereinafter the Commission) during the
year 2021-22 for the post of Revenue Lekhpal.
Originally a dispute was raised with respect to
Question No. 88 of Booklet Series ‘F’, which on
coming before this Court by Order dated 21.11.2023,
it was directed that the answer choice of ‘D’ be
considered as the correct answer. It was directed
that the entire result has to be re-evaluated by the
Commission.
2. Later, on 19.02.2024, in MA No. 276/2024 in
SLP(Civil) No. 25828/2023; in which SLP the earlier
order was passed on 21.11.2023, it was the
submission of the State Government that there
cannot be petitions repeatedly filed challenging the
very same examination since almost 8,000
applicants who came out successful are waiting to
get appointment. Noticing the same it was
specifically directed that the High Court shall
consider any objection raised with respect to the
Page 2 of 6 M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc. questions/answers only if the same were filed on or
before 21.11.2023. Subsequently, this Court by
Order dated 24.04.2025 directed a re-evaluation to
be carried out with respect to question nos. 10, 58,
63 and 90, belonging to Booklet Series No. ‘B’.
3. The present MAs are filed alleging that the IAs
referred to in the said MAs though filed and pending
as on 24.04.2025, by reason of the Registry having
not posted it along with other IAs, the petitioners lost
out a chance to be considered. Their names stood
excluded insofar as the re-evaluation carried out;
especially since this Court by Order dated
24.04.2025 directed only re-evaluation of the papers
of the applicants who had approached this Court as
on that date.
4. The Office Report dated 11.08.2025 also
indicates that on 01.08.2025, there was a direction
to the Registry to clarify as to the exclusion of the
applicants in the MAs before us; specifically, as to
whether it had not been posted because of an
Page 3 of 6 M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc. inadvertence on the part of the Registry. We have
looked at each of the IAs and the following orders are
passed.
M.A. No. 1306/2025 in C.A. No. 12069/2024 & M.A. No. 1309/2025 in C.A. No. 12076/2024
5. We find that in the above cases the issue
raised was with respect to question nos. 15, 62, 65,
67 and 99 and the dismissal of the writ petition filed
before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was
for reason of the same having been filed subsequent
to 21.11.2023; clearly barred by the order of this
Court in MA No. 276/2024 in SLP(C) No. 25828/2023
dated 19.02.2024. Hence the said MAs are
dismissed. The appellants cannot have any claim as
per the order of this Court dated 24.04.2025.
M.A. No. 1307/2025 in C.A. Nos. 12070-74/2024
6. The above MA relates to IA No. 41099/2025. It
is seen that the above IA along with some other IAs
were rejected on 15.05.2025 finding it to be totally
Page 4 of 6 M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc. misconceived. The Office Report confirms that the IA
was filed and was pending as on 24.04.2025, in such
circumstances, the IA is restored and the same is
allowed permitting the applicants therein, the benefit
as per the Order dated 24.04.2025.
M.A. No. 1308/2025 in C.A. No. 12075/2024
7. The above IA was also dismissed on
15.05.2025 along with IA No. 19445/2025 and
another IA. The Office Report indicates that as on
23.04.2025, the IA was defective and hence there
can be no modification of the Order dated
15.05.2025. The MA stands rejected.
8. It is also pointed out by the Registry that IA
No. 48299/2025 and IA No. 294693/2024 were filed
respectively on 21.02.2025 and 17.12.2024 and
were also pending as on 24.04.2025 when the Civil
Appeals were disposed of. In such circumstances, the
said IAs are also allowed, and the applicants therein
are found entitled to the benefit of the Order dated
24.04.2025.
Page 5 of 6 M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc. M.A. No.1431 of 2025 in C.A. No.5503 of 2025
I.A. No.220493/2024 and I.A. No.295481/2024 in C.A. No.5503 of 2025
9. M.A. No.1431 of 2025 in C.A. No.5503 of 2025
is taken on board. The above I.A.s are filed by the
persons who lost out on the answer to Question
No.88 in Booklet ‘F’ being changed. They claim grace
marks, since on re-evaluation, one mark was
reduced for them, leaving them out of the final merit
list published on 30.12.2023. There cannot be any
such grace mark especially, since this Court had
determined the correct answer and directed re-
evaluation on that basis. The said applications stand
dismissed.
The MAs/IAs are ordered accordingly.
.…….…………………….….. CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
.……….…………………….….. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
.……….…………………….….. J.
(N.V. ANJARIA) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 12, 2025.
Page 6 of 6 M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free