[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/352/2025 on 10 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
10.01.2026 SPA No.360 of 2025
With
SPA Nos.361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372,373 of 2025
&
SPA No.352 of 2025
With
SPA No.91 of 2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel (through
V.C.) along with Mr. Tilak Ram Sharma and Mr.
Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Shailendra Nauriyal and Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
3. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel for
private respondent in SPA No.360 of 2025, SPA
No.368 of 2025, SPA No.372 of 2025 and SPA
No.352 and 91 of 2025.
4. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for private
respondent in SPA No.361 of 2025.
5. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for private
respondents in other connected matters.
6. Mr. Ayush Pokhriyal, learned counsel for
private respondent.
7. Private respondents participated in the
selection for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T.
Grade held by Uttarakhand Subordinate Service
Selection Commission. Since their names did not
figure in the provisional recommendation dated
09.02.2025, therefore, they filed separate writ
petitions challenging certain answers as given to
different questions, in the answer key. The selecting
body i.e. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission conceded that two questions, which
were asked in the written examination, were
ambiguous, therefore, they shall be deleted and
bonus marks would be given to all candidates.
8. Learned Single Judge decided the batch of writ
petitions with the following directions:-
"(i) The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Commission is
directed to revise the result of all the candidates by deleting
two questions, namely, Booklet A Question 2 and Booklet
C Question 39.
(ii) The Commission is further directed to revise the result
of all the candidates for Booklet D Question 64 as the
correct answer to this question is options B & C.
(iii) For deleted questions (Booklet A Question 2 and
Booklet C Question 39) and Booklet D Question 64 after
re-evaluation, marks should be allotted as per the
Guidelines of the Commission.
(iv) While carrying out the above exercise, the Commission
need not revise the result of all those candidates whose
names were included in the provisional recommendation
list published on 09.02.2025. The candidates whose names
have already been recommended in the provisional
recommendation list shall not be affected by this exercise.
There is no necessity to revise their result. Therefore, this
exercise shall be undertaken, excluding all the candidates
who were included in the provisional recommendation list
dated 09.02.2025.
(v) The Commission shall also publish cut-off marks of the
last selected candidate under each subject/category, who
were included in the provisional recommendation list dated
09.02.2025 forwarded by the Commission.
(vi) On the basis of revised result, those candidates who
obtains equal or more marks than the marks obtained by the
last candidate in the provisional recommendation list dated
09.02.2025, in their respective subject/category, shall be
offered appointments against the vacant posts. If the
candidates could not be accommodated against the vacant
posts, the respondent, State of Uttarakhand shall create
supernumerary posts for them, so that they may be
appointed.
(vii) The entire exercise for revising the result and making
recommendation for appointment shall be completed by the
Commission within a period of three months from today."
9. The selecting body has come in appeal against
the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the Writ Court could not have gone into the question
of correctness of an answer, as in academic matters,
opinion of the domain expert has to be respected.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents however
submit that the candidates whose name were
included in the provisional recommendation list have
been appointed and by the impugned judgment,
concerned authorities were restrained from revising
their result, even though their score of marks would
also be changed due to the direction contained in
Clause (i), (ii), (iii) of the impugned judgment.
12. Learned counsel for respondents also submit
that the result of those candidates whose name are
included in the provisional recommendation list
published on 09.02.2025 should not be disturbed, is
interferable, as the mistake, if any, in the question or
the answer to any question given in the answer key,
if corrected, then it has to be corrected qua all
candidates and not selectively against those whose
names could not figure in the provisional
recommendation list.
13. Having regard to the facts of the case, the
appellant is directed to issue public notice to such
persons, who are appointed on the strength of
provisional recommendation list, issued by the
selecting body, by issuing advertisement in two
leading newspapers having wide circulation within
the State, one of which may be in English language.
Advertisement shall be published within ten days. In
that public notice, it shall be mentioned that persons
who have been appointed on the result of selection in
question, can approach this Court by filing
impleadment application in any of these appeals and
further that their appointment shall abide by outcome
of these special appeals. Impleadment application
may be filed by the persons who are appointed
pursuant to the same selection, before this Court
within three weeks from the date of publication of
advertisement issued by appellant.
14. List these matters on 18.02.2026.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.01.2026
BS/Akash
