[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Nilothpal Shankar & Others. ...... ... vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 4 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.471 OF 2025
Nilothpal Shankar & others. ...... Petitioners
Vs.
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Judgment reserved on: 03.12.2025
Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)
Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the
following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the
impugned Final Answer Key dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure
No.8 to the writ petition) so far as the Selecting Body has
deleted Question No. 126 of Question Booklet Series-A of
Upper Subordinate Examination-2025 inasmuch as the
answer given by the Petitioners for the said question is
correct and accordingly revise the marks allotted to the
Petitioners.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the
impugned Final Answer Key dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure
No. to the writ petition) so far as the Selecting Body has
deleted Question No. 49 of Question Booklet Series-A of
Upper Subordinate Examination-2025 inasmuch as the
said question has been wrongly framed as none of the
option given by the Selecting Body is a correct option and
hence the said question is required to be deleted.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondent Selecting Body to
revise the Final Result dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure No.6
to the writ petition) of the Preliminary Examination of the
Upper Subordinate Examination-2025 by including the
Roll Numbers of the Petitioners and to declare the
Petitioners qualified for appearing in the Mains
Examination of Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/
Upper Subordinate Examination-2025.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus constituting an independent Expert
Committee of Subject Experts to look into the Question
Nos. 49 and 126 of Question Booklet Series-A of General
Studies Test and examine the correct answers to these
questions."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
On 07.05.2025, the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for the
Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services
Examination, 2025. The petitioners applied pursuant to the said
advertisement and participated in the preliminary examination.
After the preliminary examination, the respondent-Commission
uploaded the provisional answer key on its official website and
invited objections from the candidates. Subsequently, an
amended provisional answer key was also published by the
Commission. According to the petitioners, they attempted
Question No. 49 and 126 of the Question Booklet Series-A. The
petitioners gave Option 'D' for Question No. 49 and Option 'A' for
Question No. 126. After the Preliminary Examination, the
Selecting Body published the Provisional Answer Key on 04th
July, 2025 on its website, wherein the Selecting Body also gave
the same options as exercised by the petitioners as correct
answer key for the said questions. The Selecting Body invited
objections on the Provisional Answer Key published on
04.07.2025. Selecting Body invited objections from the
candidates on the questions as well as on the answer key. Since
the options exercised by the petitioners in respect of Question
Nos. 49 and 126 of Booklet Series-A was the same as was given
by the Selecting Body, therefore, the petitioners did not submit
any objection on the answer key published by the Selecting Body.
After deciding the objections received against the Provisional
Answer Key, on the basis of the opinion of the subject expert, the
Selecting Body published the Amended Answer Key on
03.09.2025. In the Amended Answer Key, the Selecting Body
detailed the option 'A' as correct answer key for Question No.49,
however, Question No. 126 of Booklet Series-A was deleted. On
08.10.2025, the Selecting Body published the Result of the
Preliminary Examination, whereby the candidates were declared
qualified for appearing in the Mains Examination of the Upper
Subordinate Service Examination-2025. It is submitted that the
Roll Number of the petitioners did not figure in the result of the
preliminary examination. Question No. 49 of Set 'A' of General
Studies Paper reads as under:
"Which of the following records is not maintained by the
Panchayats in Uttarakhand?
(a) Health register
(b) Family register
(c) Birth-death registration register
(d) Grant register
According to the petitioners, the Question No. 49 was
not deleted inspite of the fact the said question do not have any
of the option as correct answer, inasmuch as, all the register of
the records given as options of Question No. 49 are required to
be maintained by the Gram Panchayat.
Question No.126 of Set 'A' of General Studies Paper
reads as under:
"Consider the following statements with reference to Trade
Union Movement in India:
1. All India Trade Union Congress was founded in 1920.
2. Lala Lajpat Rai was elected its first President.
3. All India Trade Union Federation was formed by S.A.
Dange in 1929.
Select the correct answer from the code given below:
(a) Only 1 & 2 (b) Only 1 & 3 (c) Only 2 & 3 (d) Only 2 & 4"
According to the petitioners, since the options
exercised by the petitioners in respect of Question No. 126 of
Booklet Series-A was the same as was given by the Selecting
Body, therefore, the petitioners did not submit any objection on
the provisional answer key of Question No. 126.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
action of the respondent-Selecting Body in deleting Question
No. 126 of Booklet Series-A from the Final Answer Key is
manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the mandate
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
deletion of the said questions has been effected without any
cogent reasons, rational basis, or supporting documentary
evidence on record, thereby rendering the entire exercise
unsustainable in law. He further submits that Health register,
Family register, Birth-death registration register and Grant
register all are maintained by the Panchayats in Uttarakhand,
therefore, the Option 'A'- Health register, is not maintained by
Gram Panchayat in the State of Uttarakhand is not a correct
answer. The newly inserted Section 35-A of Uttarakhand
Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 specifically provides that the women
member shall be appointed as Chairman in the Education
Committee and Health and Welfare Committee of Gram
Panchayat, as may be prescribed in the Rules. He submits that
thus, it is apparently clear that it is a statutory requirement
that Health and Welfare Committee is constituted at Gram
Panchayat level. It is further submitted that the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India has issued the
guidelines for Village Health and Sanitation Committees, Sub
Centers, PHCs and CHCs. The Guidelines have been issued for
implementation of National Rural Health Mission as approved
by Central Govt. The Guidelines require constitution of Village
Health and Sanitation Committee out of which 50% members
should be women. The Committee is required to operate a Bank
Account with the joint signature of Health Worker/ Anganwadi
Worker and Chairman of Village Health and Sanitation
Committee. In order to ensure the accountability of the
Committee, the Committee is required to maintain the Register
containing complete details of activities undertaken,
expenditure incurred and the said register has to be periodically
reviewed by ANM/ Sarpanch. He argued that in absence of any
rational justification or record-based reasoning for such
deletion, the impugned action of the Selecting Body is ex facie
arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the principles of natural
justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that Option 'A' was marked as correct answer on the
basis of the opinion of the subject expert. Relevant extract of
the expert opinion is extracted below:
"The answer given in the Answerkey of Aayog
option (A) is correct. The record keeping
function of Uttarakhand Panchayats as
mentioned in various Acts and authoritative
manuals supports the answer given in the
answer key provided by UKPSC."
He submits that the entire process of finalization of
answer key for the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper
Subordinate Services Examination, 2025 (Preliminary) has been
conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme,
established procedures and principles of transparency, fairness
and natural justice. The advertisement was issued on
07.05.2025; Preliminary Examination held on 29.06.2025.
Provisional Answer Key was published on 04.07.2025 on the
official website. The objections against Provisional Answer Key
were specifically invited. Petitioners filed no objections
whatsoever, thereby accepting the Provisional Key as correct
and estopped from raising grievance at post-finalization stage.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. Petitioners challenge the deletion of Question No.126
from Booklet Series-A in the Final Answer Key for the
Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services
Examination, 2025 (Preliminary) held on 29.06.2025, alleging
arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Provisional Answer Key was published on 04.07.2025 inviting
specific objections, which the petitioners failed to file, thereby
accepting it as correct and estopped from challenging post-
finalization. The scope of judicial review in examination matters
is confined to manifest arbitrariness or procedural illegality. The
Courts do not re-evaluate questions absent cogent evidence. No
material demonstrates procedural lapse in finalization or lack of
rational basis for deletions, following statutory process
including objection window. Admittedly, no new Rules have
been framed by the State.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh
& others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2018)
2 SCC 357, has held that candidates not objecting to provisional
keys stand estopped from post-result challenge, prioritizing
process integrity. Failure to utilize the objection mechanism
bars Article 14 claims, as affirmed in relevant precedents
limiting interference absent proven prejudice warranting judicial
intervention. Petitioners missing cutoff by narrow margin does
not override established procedure.
7. Taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and the provisions
contained in Regulation 9(iv) of Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission (Examination Result Preparation Procedure)
Regulations, 2022 and also keeping in view the facts of the
present case, no interference by this Court is warranted.
8. In these circumstances, the writ petition does not
merit interference and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445
e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5
109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2025.12.04 14:38:07 +05'30'
