Uttarakhand High Court
20 November vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 20 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10368
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition Service Single No. 703 of 2025
20 November, 2025
Abhishek Tomar & others. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition Service Single No. 840 of 2025
Chandra Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant,
Advocate for the petitioners in WPSS No. 703 of 2025
Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS No. 840 of 2025.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. B.D. Kandpal & Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 10.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the interveners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are
heard together and are being decided by a common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 703 of 2025 alone are being
considered and discussed.
2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission held
a combined selection for the posts of (i) Review Officer
and (ii) Assistant Review Officer, against vacancies
available in Uttarakhand Secretariat, Uttarakhand
2025:UHC:10368
Public Service Commission and Board of Revenue,
Uttarakhand. Total 136 vacancies were notified vide
advertisement dated 8.9.2023, issued by Public Service
Commission.
3. Petitioners participated in the selection
process consisting of Preliminary Examination, followed
by Written Examination and Computer Efficiency Test.
4. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that
initially when the result was declared on 28.3.2025,
name of the petitioners was included in the select list,
however, the said select list was cancelled on 2.4.2025
and a revised select list was published on 11.4.2025, in
which their name was altogether missing. Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court
challenging the revised select list, published on
11.4.2025.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing
for the Selecting Body, the written examination
consisted of three papers, namely- (i) General Studies,
(ii) Hindi Composition and (iii) Essay, out of which first
one was objective test and the remaining two i.e. Hindi
Composition and Essay were subjective/descriptive.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Selecting
Body points out that a private firm was engaged by
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for scanning
the OMR sheets, in which answer to objective type
questions are given by blackening the slots, large
number of complaints were received from the
candidates, and upon enquiry, it was found that there
are discrepancy in the marks awarded to the
2025:UHC:10368
candidates for objective (MCQ) questions. It was
revealed that the Standard Operating Procedure to be
followed in such cases, namely to scan the OMR sheet
by low resolution and thereafter by high resolution for
removing the mismatch in the OMR sheets, was not
followed which had led to wrong allocation of marks to
the candidates. It is pointed out that earlier, select list
was published on 28.3.2025, complaints were received
in the evening of 28.3.2025, since on 29.3.2025,
30.3.2025 and 31.3.2025 office of Commission
remained closed, therefore, on reopening of office on
2.4.2025, a decision was taken at the highest level in
the Commission to cancel the select list published on
28.3.2025. The decision taken by the Commission on
2.4.2025 is produced in Court, is taken on record . The
said decision is signed by four members and also the
Chairman of the Commission.
7. Perusal of the said decision indicates that the
Commission had provided that revised result shall be
prepared and declared as soon as possible.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Public Service
Commission further submits that in the
subjective/descriptive examination in respect of Hindi
Composition and Essay also, mistakes were found,
which had occurred while transcribing the marks from
answer-sheet to the award sheet and from award sheet
to the computer. Thus, it is submitted that the entire
exercise was done afresh and after ensuring that all
errors which crept in while preparing the result are
removed, a revised result was published on 11.4.2025.
It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the
2025:UHC:10368
Commission that the firm, which was found responsible
for the discrepancy in the earlier select list published on
28.3.2025, was decided to be replaced and Notice
Inviting Tender have been published by the Commission
so that some new firm for the work of scanning of OMR
sheets may be engaged. They further submit that one
Section Officer and two Review Officers of Public
Service Commission have been charge-sheeted on
20.8.2025 for their negligence, while transcribing
marks from answer scripts to the award sheet and from
award sheet to the computer. Thus, it is submitted that
it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the
Commission, which has now been rectified.
9. Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 840 of
2025 submits that in the earlier select list, published on
28.3.2025, petitioner (Chandra Kumar) scored 53
marks in essay paper, however, in the revised result,
published on 11.4.2025, his score of marks for Essay
paper was reduced to 43.
10. Learned counsel for the Public Service
Commission has produced the answer-script of Hindi
Composition and Essay Papers of petitioner in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 840 of 2025 in Court, in a sealed
cover, which was opened in the presence of learned
counsels.
11. Perusal of the answer-script of Essay paper of
Chandra Kumar reveals that the examiner had awarded
43 marks to him for Essay. Thus, this Court finds
substance in the submission made by the Selecting
Body that while transcribing the marks from the answer
script of Essay paper to the award-sheet and from
2025:UHC:10368
award sheet to the computer, by mistake, petitioner's
score in Essay paper was shown as 53 and that mistake
was subsequently rectified, when pursuant to the
decision taken by the Commission on 2.4.2025, the
entire result was scrutinized.
12. Thus, the allegation made by the petitioners
against the Commission appears to be unfounded. It is
a case of correction of mistake by the Commission and
the decision taken by the Commission to revise the
select list cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, which
may warrant interference of this Court in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case.
13. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of.
Interim order passed in these petitions are vacated.
The Commission shall be at liberty to declare the result
in respect of all advertised vacancies. The answer-script
of petitioners for Essay and Hindi Composition papers,
which were produced in Court in a sealed cover are
returned back to Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel
appearing for the Commission.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Dt: 20.11.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da8
2a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,
CHANDRA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643A
F56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.11.21 11:23:13 +05'30'
