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
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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