Vijay Sonkar And 3 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – A No. - 16959 of 2026
Vijay Sonkar & 3 Ors. …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. & 2 Ors. …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankita Singh, Taniya Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Kumar Singh, Udayan
Nandan
Court No. – 6
AFR
HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned
Standing Counsel for the State, and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction to
the respondents to award consequential marks to the petitioners in
respect of two questions in the final answer key of the Uttar Pradesh
Teacher Eligibility Test, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as
“UPTET-2026”), which, according to the petitioners, have been found to
admit of two correct options. The petitioners seek the following reliefs:
(i) Award of one mark to petitioner no. 1 in respect of Question No.
37 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question No. 52 in his Question
Booklet;

2
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
(ii) Award of one mark to petitioner no. 2 in respect of Question No.
36 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question No. 35 in her Question
Booklet;
(iii) Award of two marks to petitioner no. 3 in respect of Question Nos.
37 and 36 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question Nos. 49 and 59,
respectively, in her Question Booklet; and
(iv) Award of one mark to petitioner no. 4 in respect of Question No.
36 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question No. 60 in his Question
Booklet, to the extent that such marks have not already been credited to
the respective petitioners.
1
3. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, learned
counsel for the petitioners forgoes the prayers made in the petition,
confining her arguments to the submission that Question Nos. 36 and 37
ought to be treated as deleted, being defective questions which the expert
Committee has found to admit of two correct answers, contrary to the
scheme of the question paper, or equal marks should have been given to
all the candidate, irrespective of the fact whether the candidates have
chosen either of the two admittedly correct options or not.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1, 3 & 4 are
candidates possessing Basic Teacher Certificate (BTC)/Diploma in
Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), and petitioner no.2 is a student
currently pursuing third semester of D.El.Ed. All the petitioners belong
to the Other Backward Class category and claimed to have eligible to
participate in the Teacher Eligibility Test as may be conducted by
Central and State Governments.
5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents for
not awarding the marks to the petitioners in respect of Question Nos.36
& 37 of the Master Set (and the corresponding questions in the Booklet
Series allotted to them), for each of which the Commissions on final
answer key accepts two options as correct, and consequently declaring
1 Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690

3
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
afresh result of UP TET-2026 declared on 26.08.2026, on the scores
computed without giving due effect to the said marks.
6. The National Council for Teacher Education issued guidelines on
11.02.2011 for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test under the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Point No. 9 of
the said guidelines prescribes the qualifying marks as 60% or more in
the TET examination, while leaving it open to the school managements,
including Government, Local Bodies, Government-Aided and Unaided
institutions, to grant concessions to candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons
with disabilities, etc., in accordance with their respective extant
reservation policies.
7. For conducting UPTET-2026, respondent no. 2 issued
Advertisement No. 01/UPTET/2026 dated 20.03.2026, which was
published on the website of the U.P. Education Service Selection
Commission, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as “UPESSC”). The
accompanying Information Booklet prescribed the modalities governing
the conduct of the examination, including the eligibility criteria for the
lower primary and upper primary levels, the manner of setting the
question papers, the prescribed syllabi, and other related matters.
8. The petitioners, claiming to fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria,
applied for participation in the primary-level UPTET-2026 examination
and were accordingly issued admit cards. All four petitioners appeared in
the examination conducted on 03.07.2026 in the second shift.
9. The provisional answer key containing the answers to all 150
questions was uploaded on the website of UPESSC. On the basis of the
provisional answer key and the carbon copies of their respective OMR
answer sheets, the petitioners calculated their expected scores. Petitioner
no.1 calculated his expected score as 85 marks, petitioner no.2 as 86
marks, petitioner no.3 as 82 marks, and petitioner no.4 as 84 marks.

4
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
10. Following publication of the provisional answer key, several
candidates raised objections to certain questions. Upon consideration of
the objections received, certain answers were modified, and the final
answer key, also referred to as the ‘Master Set’, was thereafter published
on the website of UPESSC. Upon comparing the provisional answer key
with the final answer key, the petitioners found that the answers to
Question Nos. 36 and 37 had been modified.
11. In the provisional answer key, option (D) was indicated as the
correct answer to Question No. 36. However, in the final answer key,
both option (D), and option (B) were accepted as correct answers.
Similarly, in respect of Question No. 37, option (D) was indicated as the
correct answer in the provisional answer key, whereas the final answer
key accepted both option (A), and option (D) as correct answers.
12. The final result of UPTET-2026 was declared on 26.08.2026,
wherein all four petitioners were declared not qualified. Their respective
result/scorecards reflected the following normalized scores: (i) Petitioner
no. 1 scored 81.39740 marks; (ii) Petitioner no. 2 scored 81.32196
marks, (iii) Petitioner no. 3 scored 80.40104 marks; and (iv) Petitioner
no. 4 scored 80.94471 marks. All the petitioners obtained less than
minimum qualifying marks i.e. 82.
13. Since the scores so declared were lower than those calculated by
the petitioners on the basis of their respective OMR answer sheets and
the provisional answer key, they made inquiries with the Commission
and were informed that their scores have been normalized as the exam
was conducted in different shifts by UPESSC. They were further
informed that their raw scores, had been computed on the basis of the
answers marked in their respective OMR answer sheets, whereas merit
has been drawn on normalized scores by awarding marks even to those
candidates who had attempted any of two admitted correct options
against Question Nos.36 & 37.

5
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
14. For clarity, candidates who happened to mark either of the two
correct options, subsequently accepted as correct in the Master Set, have
been awarded marks in respect to Question Nos.36 & 37, and the
candidates, who had marked an option other than admittedly two correct
options had received no marks for either of the two questions.
15. Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the legal consequence flowing from the final answer key assumes
significance. As an identical controversy had arisen in relation to the
UPTET-2018 and was considered by this Court in Smt. Shimla Singh v.
2
State of U.P. , along with other connected petitions, decided by a
common judgment and order dated 19.12.2018. It is contended that the
examining authority had itself found, upon consideration of the
objections received, that two options as correct answers against single
question. The examining authority had also treated the defective question
as deleted and awarded one mark in each respect thereof to every
candidate without exception.
16. It is further argued that the present petition is squarely covered by
Smt. Shimla Singh case (supra). That case concerned UPTET-2018 with
the same qualifying marks (90/82). The authority had found two correct
options in two questions and had credited only candidates who chose
either of them. This Court held that such questions deserve to be deleted.
It held that, UPTET being merely a qualifying examination with no
inter-se competition, equity requires one mark to be allotted where more
than one option is correct, to all candidates, including those who opted
wrong answers. It directed to award one mark to every candidate, and
thereafter re-declare the result. The extension of the last date under the
pending recruitment advertisement may also be given to the affected
candidates.
17. Further, the ratio and operative principle laid down in Smt. Shimla
Singh (supra) squarely apply to the case of the present petitioners. The
material features are substantially identical, inasmuch as: (i) both matters
2 2019 (3) ADJ 777, passed in Writ-A No. 25791 of 2018, and decided on 19.12.2018

6
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
concern UPTET; (ii) UPTET is a qualifying examination and does not
determine inter-se merit amongst candidates; (iii) the examining
authority itself has accepted more than one option as correct in respect of
the questions in issue; and (iv) the petitioners herein stand marginally
below the prescribed qualifying threshold. Denial of the same treatment
to the present petitioners would result in similarly situated UPTET
candidates being treated differently without any rational basis.
18. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in a
batch of petitions with a leading case titled Smt. Shimla Singh case
(supra), some of the candidates preferred Special Appeal before this
Court. The same came to be rejected vide order dated 04.01.2019. Thus,
3
the judgment passed in an appeal against Smt. Shimla Singh case
(supra) has attained finality for all purposes.
19. It is next contended that once the examining authority itself has
recognized more than one correct option in respect of a question
requiring the candidate to select a single answer, the entire scheme of
evaluation of answer-sheets become defective, and she relies on (i) Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav and
4 5
Others ; (ii) Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. , (iii) Rishal and Others v.
6
Rajasthan Public Service Commission .
20. The relevant para of Ashok Yadav (supra), are extracted herein
below:
“22. The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decision(s) is
that a challenge to the correctness of answer key must be entertained
only where the mistake is so glaring and apparent that no inferential
process or reasoning is required to show that the mistake exists.
Besides, while considering a challenge to the correctness of a question
or an answer, the court must bear in mind that there is a presumption
about the correctness of the question/answer, and the onus is on the
candidate to demonstrate that it is incorrect. Further, in the event of a
3 Himanshu Gangwar v. State of U.P., Special Appeal Defective No.3 of 2019, decided on
04.01.2019
4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1893
5 (2018) 2 SCC 357
6 (2018) 8 SCC 81

7
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
mere doubt about the correctness of the question or the answer, the
benefit should go to the examining body and not to the candidate.
However, where it is demonstrated that the question itself is incorrect,
or there could be two correct answers to the question when only one is
to be chosen from the options provided, the Court may interfere and
order exclusion of the suspect or offending question from evaluation .
In a situation where the question is correct and is admissible to only
one answer and that answer is amongst the options provided but is not
the one chosen by the examining body, the Court may direct the
examining body to award marks only for the correct answer and revise
the result accordingly. While entertaining a petition in such matters,
courts must be strict in condoning laches, if any, having regard to the
ensuing consequences. Besides, the court may reject a challenge if the
procedure prescribed to raise objection(s) to the question/answer,
within a specified time frame, is not followed.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. Likewise, in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Supreme Court recorded
few significant conclusions with respect to the courses available with the
examining authority where re-evaluation or correctness of the answer
key has been challenged. In the case of a disputed questions, the benefit
should go to the examining authority rather than the candidates,
however, also observed to exclude the offending questions from scheme
of evaluation. Entire examination process cannot be derailed for
grievances of few candidates. The Court should presume correctness of
key answers and proceed on that assumption. The relevant para is
extracted herein below:
“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not
play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of
an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority,
the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination
process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates
are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been
caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All
candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that
cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible.

8
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect
or offending question.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. Similarly, in Rishal (supra), the Supreme Court examined the
correctness of final key answers uploaded by the Commission and held
that objections to key answers are to be examined by experts and
thereafter corrective measures, if required, to be taken by examining
body. If the fault lies with the Commission, not the candidates, the
benefit should extend to all, including those who did not object or
approach the Court. The Supreme Court, inter-alia, held:
“16. Following the above judgment in Kanpur University [Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] this Court in Manish
Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University [Manish Ujwal v.
Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744] ,
reiterated the principle in the following words in paras 9 and 10: (SCC
p. 748)
“9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir
Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] considering a similar problem, this Court
held that there is an assumption about the key answers being correct
and in case of doubt, the Court would unquestionably prefer the key
answers. It is for this reason that we have not referred to those key
answers in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of
opinion between the experts. Regarding the key answers in respect
whereof the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, this Court has held
that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer
which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which
is demonstrated to be wrong. There is no dispute about the aforesaid six
key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not
been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view,
students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the
University.
10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the
conclusion that “it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six
questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect”. As
already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably

9
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether
the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the
High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors
committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because
there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the
erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time,
however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who
prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution
is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention
few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the
student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a
casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student
at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer,
the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous
key answers; the second reason is that the courts are slow in
interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher
responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and
thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University
and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in
providing key answers is adopted by the persons concerned, directions
may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including
disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and
demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such
directions in the present case.”
26. The questions having been deleted from the answers, the question
paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted
questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions
cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has
adopted a uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to
the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all the
candidates have been benefited by the redistribution of marks in
accordance with the number of correct answers which have been given
by them. We, thus, do not find any fault with redistribution of marks of
the deleted marks (sic questions). The High Court has rightly approved
the said methodology.
27. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that the
result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this
Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected,

10
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
merit of all the candidates except those who have already been
selected needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16-1-2018
[Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, 2018 SCC OnLine
SC 749] it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those who
have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view that the
Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates except
those who have been selected on the basis of the report of the Expert
Committee and publish revised result of all the candidates. When the
key answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the
examination, they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault
does not lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It
shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates who
have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps taken by the
Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the
task of revising the key answers.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. It is next argued that the petitioners are not seeking a judicial
determination of the correctness of an answer contrary to the opinion of
the examining authority. Their grievance arises from the UPESSC own
acceptance of two correct options against a question and the chilling
effect on the candidates who did not select either of the accepted options,
or accepted one as the correct answers.
24. Learned counsel further submits that the UPESSC itself dropped
Question No. 38 of the same question paper, thereby demonstrating that
exclusion of a defective question from evaluation was a course of action
adopted in the very same examination. It is argued that Question Nos. 36
and 37 ought likewise to be excluded from evaluation or otherwise
treated as deleted. The petitioners contend that there is no point in giving
a benefit of one mark in respect of each disputed question for choosing
either of the correct answers. Irrespective of the options selected by the
candidates, the defective questions shall be treated as deleted for all
purposes.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that failure to
raise objections to the provisional answer key does not dis-entitle the

11
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
petitioners to approach this Court. The Information Booklet prescribes a
procedure for raising objections but does not stipulate that failure to
object would operate as a bar to claiming relief against an error
subsequently reflected in the final answer key. It is contended that the
defect in question became apparent only upon publication of the final
answer key, which was released along with the result on 26.08.2026.
Once an error in the answer key is acknowledged and corrected pursuant
to objections raised by certain candidates, the consequential benefit of
such correction cannot be confined exclusively to those who raised the
objections. Reliance is placed upon Shruti Katiyar v. Registrar General,
7
Delhi High Court , in support of the proposition that the benefit of a
correction should extend to all similarly situated candidates. The relevant
para-7 is extracted herein below:
“7. As indicated above, although it is not in dispute that the petitioner
had not preferred objection concerning the question in issue i.e.,
question no.54 in ‘Booklet A’, there were other candidates who had
lodged an objection qua the same with the respondent. Therefore, in our
view, the preliminary objection taken by Dr. George loses its efficacy as
a relief given to any candidate would inure ordinarily in favour of all
the candidates. The objections, in a sense, attain universality, once
taken by any candidate. The purpose of affording candidates the
opportunity to lodge objections is salutary as it allows the respondent to
take corrective measures in the larger interest of candidates and move
away from a possible unfair result.”
26. Per contra, Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 2 and 3- Selection Commission- submits that none of the
petitioners selected any of the options subsequently accepted as correct
in respect of Question Nos. 36 and 37 of the Master Set. It is contended
that, upon revision of the result, the Commission awarded full marks to
all candidates who had selected the either of the options out of the two
correct options in respect of the aforesaid questions. Since the petitioners
did not select any of the accepted options, they cannot claim the benefit
of marks in respect of those questions.
7 W.P.(C) 2344 of 2024 & CM APPL. 9705 of 2024

12
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
27. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
petitioners, having failed to raise objections to the provisional answer
key, cannot subsequently seek relief before this Court. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment dated
17.11.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 3010 of 2022 and the judgment dated
06.10.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 492 of 2020. It is further
contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Smt. Shimla
Singh case (supra) did not take into consideration the earlier Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar Singh and Others v. State
8
of U.P. and Others , therefore, Smt. Shimla Singh (supra) judgment does
not hold good law. The learned counsel for the Commission has drawn
the attention of the Court to paragraphs 64, 66 and 69 of the Sunil
Kumar Singh (supra). The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein
below:
“64. The Expert appointed by the Court agreed with the petitioners that
the costliest metal on earth discovered so far is ‘Endohedral
Fullerence’, but did not accept it as a correct answer to the question
posed as it is a non-metal. According to the Expert, the costliest metal
on earth discovered so far is Californium 252 as suggested by the
Commission. For convenience of reference, the opinion of the expert is
extracted below:-
“1. The modern Periodic Table of the Elements (Long Form) is a
collection of elements discovered so far and contains 118 elements
classified as metals, non-metals, metalloid and noble gases.
Annexure “A”
2. In the above-mentioned Periodic Table, Californium (atomic number
98 : Californium 252 being an isotope of Californium) and Rhodium
(atomic number 45) have been marked as metals. It is also clear that
Endohedral Fullerences and Tritium do not fall under die category of
metals.
Annexure “A”
3. Californium 252 was discovered in 1950 and costs US $. 27 million
per gram whereas Rhodium was discovered in 1803 and costs US $. 58
per gram.
Annexure “B”
4. Endohedral fullerences, also called endofullerenes, are fullerenes that
have additional atoms, ions, or clusters enclosed within their inner
spheres. The first lanthanum C60 complex was synthesized in 1985 and
called La@C60 The @ (at sign) in the name reflects the notion of a
small molecule trapped inside a shell. Two types of endohedral
8 2016 SCC OnLine All 4351

13
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
complexes exist : endohedral metallofullerenes (if metal atom is inside
the fullerene cage) and non-metal doped fullerenes (if atom/luster is
other man metal atom inside the fullerene cage). It is worth mentioning
here that the main case or sphere of fullerenes is composed of “Carbon”
atoms only and “Carbon” is marked as non-metal in the Periodic
Table.”
66. We now proceed to examine the alternate submission that the
question as framed was misleading, wrongly structured and should have
been deleted.
69. A candidate had to answer 150 questions in two hours and thus got
48 seconds on an average for each question. A candidate with higher
intelligent quotient will obviously make an effort to answer the
question and in the process will loose valuable time, so crucial for
optimum output. Thus in the opinion of the Court a question containing
a wrong clue works seriously to the prejudice of a bright student. The
very object of identifying the best talent stands defeated. The Court is,
thus, of the opinion that the question, as it contains a wrong and
misleading clue, should have been deleted.”
28. The respondents also seek to distinguish Rishal (supra), on the
ground that the said case concerned questions that were demonstrably
incorrect and were consequently deleted. According to the respondents,
no question in the present case is so palpably erroneous as to warrant
deletion. It is further contended that the petitioners have not specifically
prayed for deletion of Question Nos. 36 and 37 and, therefore, cannot
derive any benefit from the aforesaid judgment.
29. With regard to Ashok Yadav (supra) learned counsel for the
respondents submits that paragraph 22 (supra) of the said judgment
indicates that where a question admits of two correct answers although
only one option is required to be selected, the Court may direct deletion
of the question. It is contended that the petitioners have not sought
deletion of the disputed questions. The respondents further submit that
the appeal in Ashok Yadav (supra) was allowed by the Supreme Court
after holding that neither the question nor the answer was patently
incorrect and that the High Court had, therefore, erred in granting relief
to the candidate.
30. Ms. Taniya Pandey, in rejoinder, submits that the objection
concerning the applicability of Sunil Kumar Singh (supra) is
misconceived. It is contended that the Division Bench judgment in Sunil

14
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
Kumar Singh, relied upon by the respondents, has subsequently been set
9
aside in its entirety by the Supreme Court .
31. According to Ms. Taniya Pandey, the direction contained in
paragraph 69 of the judgment in Sunil Kumar Singh (supra), upon which
the respondents place reliance, corresponds to the direction recorded in
paragraph 3(a) of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which was set
aside in the Civil Appeal (supra). It is further submitted that the
operation of the relevant direction had remained stayed since
07.04.2017, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the judgment. Thus learned
counsel for the petitioners contends that the effect and operation of Sunil
Kumar Singh (supra) judgment was stayed by Supreme Court on
07.04.2017 and finally the Civil Appeal was dismissed on 05.08.2026.
However, Smt. Shimla Singh (supra) was passed on 19.12.2018, during
the relevant period when the effect of stay was in operation, therefore,
there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the
UPESSC to the effect of non reliance of Sunil Kumar Singh (supra).
32. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in any
event, Smt. Shimla Singh proceeds on the specific consideration that
UPTET is a qualifying examination and does not involve inter-se
competition amongst candidates. The reasoning adopted therein, is
founded upon the distinct nature and purpose of the TET examination
and is, therefore, directly relevant to the controversy involved in the
present case.
33. As regards the objection concerning the absence of a specific
prayer for deletion, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
paragraphs 27 to 29 of the petition specifically raise the issue of
questions admitting of two correct options be excluded from evaluation.
Further, prayer clauses (i) to (iv) seeks the award of consequential marks
in respect of the disputed questions.
9 In U.P.P.S.C. v. Sunil Kumar Singh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1571 (Civil Appeal No. 4970 of 2017,
decided on 05.08.2026).

15
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
34. It is submitted that the relief claimed must be considered in the
context of the pleadings read as a whole and that this Court may grant
the relief in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case and
the applicable law. Reliance is placed upon Rajesh Kumar (supra). The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“15. There is, in our view, no merit in that contention of Mr Rao. The
reasons are not far to seek. It is true that the writ petitioners had not
impleaded the selected candidates as party-respondents to the case. But
it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the petitioners
could not be granted to them simply because there was no prayer for the
same. The writ petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ
petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer
scripts by the Commission but specifically averred that the “model
answer key” which formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous.
One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High
Court directly was whether the “model answer key” was correct. The
High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field who,
as already noticed above, found the “model answer key” to be
erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of 100
questions contained in ‘A’ series question paper. Other errors were also
found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was used for
evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on
the basis of the same could be no different. The Division Bench of the
High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result
of the examination insofar as the same pertained to ‘A’ series question
paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire
examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the
proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated
by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis
thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The High Court was, in
that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and
issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of
the selection process but also to ensure that no candidate earned an
undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key.
16. The decisions of this Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan
Samadkhan Sindhi [(2010) 1 SCC 234 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 757] and
State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011) 2 SCC

16
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
(L&S) 83] , relied upon by Mr Rao are clearly distinguishable. The
power of the court to mould the relief, according to the demands of the
situation, was never the subject-matter of dispute in those cases. That
power is well recognised and is available to a writ court to do complete
justice between the parties. The first limb of the argument advanced by
Mr Rao fails and is accordingly rejected.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the
10
judgments Priti Singh v. State of U.P. , and Uday Bhan Yadav v. State of
11
U.P. , are distinguishable on their facts.
36. It is contended that Priti Singh (supra) is distinguishable as it
concerned a challenge to the correctness of an answer which had
remained unchanged from the provisional answer key to the final answer
key, and the challenge was raised only after the interview stage of a
competitive selection process got over. In the present case, by contrast,
the petitioners’ grievance concerns the Commission’s acceptance of two
correct options in the final answer key, which was published along with
the result, and the examination in question is a qualifying examination.
The ratio of Priti Singh (supra) therefore does not apply to the facts of
the present case.
37. Similarly, in Uday Bhan Yadav (supra), the appellant sought
correction of the answer key, and raised challenge beyond the last date
prescribed for raising objections. The appellant had also not challenged
the final result, and the proposed alteration had the potential to affect
candidates who had already been selected. According to the petitioners,
these circumstances do not arise in the present case.
38. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of
the record, its observed that the controversy in the present case arises
from the final answer key published by the UPESSC, wherein two
options have been accepted as correct in respect of each of Question
Nos. 36 and 37 of the Master Set. The petitioners' grievance is not
founded upon their disagreement with the answer key. Rather, it is
10 Writ-A No. 3010 of 2022, decided on 17.11.2022
11 Special Appeal No. 492 of 2020, decided on 06.10.2020

17
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
founded upon the Commission's own determination that more than one
option i.e. two options are correct in respect of each of the disputed
questions. The central issue, therefore, concerns the appropriate method
of evaluation in such circumstances and whether the treatment adopted
by the Commission ensures fairness and uniformity amongst candidates.
39. It is a settled principle that the process of evaluation in a public
examination must be fair, transparent and consistent with the applicable
rules. At the same time, the scope of judicial review in matters
concerning examination questions and answer keys is circumscribed, and
courts ordinarily exercise restraint in substituting their own views for
those of the examining authority, particularly where the correctness of a
question or answer involves academic expertise.
40. The principles governing judicial interference in examination
matters have been considered by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh
(supra). The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in matters
concerning answer keys, while recognizing that appropriate intervention
may be warranted in exceptional circumstances in accordance with the
governing legal principles. The present case, however, raises a question
distinct from a mere disagreement with the examining authority's
assessment.
41. The judgment in Smt. Shimla Singh case (supra) assumes
particular significance in the context of the present controversy. The said
case concerned UPTET-2018, wherein the examining authority had
accepted more than one option as correct in respect of certain questions.
This Court considered the nature of the TET examination and observed
that it is a qualifying examination rather than a competitive examination
involving inter-se ranking amongst candidates. The Court proceeded to
examine the appropriate treatment of questions admitting of more than
one correct answer and directed the award of marks to all candidates in
respect of the disputed questions, followed by consequential directions
concerning the declaration of results. It is admitted that the factual and
legal circumstances of the present case are materially similar, since

18
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
UPTET-2026 is also a qualifying examination and the Commission has
itself accepted two options as correct in respect of each disputed
question.
42. It is an admitted position that the UP Public Service Commission
through its Chairman, assailed the order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Sunil Kumar Singh (supra) before the Supreme Court, and
the Supreme Court vide its order dated 05.08.2026, in Civil Appeal
(supra), set aside the order passed by this Court in Sunil Kumar Singh
(supra) in the light of Ran Vijay Singh (supra).
43. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision, is that the High
Court’s direction to give full marks to the candidates for attempting
either of the correct answers out of the two correct options has been set
aside. Nevertheless, the petitioners’ case fall consideration of the
applicability of Smt. Shimla Singh case (supra), which has attained
finality for as of now.
44. The petitioners principal grievance is that the Commission has
has itself erroneously accepted two of the four options as correct against
the scheme of the examination. Thus has committed palpable error.
Therefore, such a questions either must have been treated as deleted or,
on the principle of equity, equal marks must be awarded to all candidates
irrespective of the fact weather the same have been attempted by the
candidates or not.
45. Once a question is found to admit of more than one correct
answer, the appropriate method of evaluation must be determined in
accordance with Smt. Shimla Singh case (supra), either the benefit of
one mark per defective question should be extended to all candidates,
irrespective of the options selected by them or the questions shall be
treated as deleted.
46. The question is not merely whether the petitioners selected an
accepted option or not. It is whether the evaluation method adopted by
the Commission in respect of questions admitting of multiple correct

19
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
answers is legally sustainable and consistent with the principle of equal
treatment in view of the consistent view of the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgments.
47. This Court is of the view that the acceptance of two options as
correct in respect of Question Nos. 36 and 37 of the Master Set warrants
their exclusion from evaluation. A multiple-choice question in which the
candidate is required to select a single correct answer from four options
ceases to serve any evaluative purpose once the examining authority
itself accepts two of those options as correct, for the question is then no
longer capable of discriminating between a candidate who knows the
answer and one who does not. That is precisely the situation in which the
Supreme Court, in Ashok Yadav (supra), held in paragraph 22 that
“where it is demonstrated that the question itself is incorrect, or there
could be two correct answers to the question when only one is to be
chosen from the options provided, the Court may interfere and order
exclusion of the suspect or offending question from evaluation”; and in
Ran Vijay Singh (supra), in paragraph 31, described exclusion of the
offending question as the way out of such an impasse. It bears notice that
exclusion is also the course the Commission itself adopted in this very
examination in respect of Question No. 38. There is no intelligible basis
upon which two questions found to admit of two correct answers each
should be treated differently from a third question dropped from the
same paper. Question Nos. 36 and 37 are accordingly directed to be
excluded from evaluation .
48. Once a question is excluded from evaluation, no marks fall to be
awarded to any candidate in respect of it, and the option to award a mark
to the candidate becomes immaterial. The methodology adopted by the
Commission- of crediting full marks to those candidates alone who
happened to select one of the two options later accepted as correct-
cannot be sustained. It rests upon the fortuity of a choice made in respect
of a question that was incapable of a single correct answer, and it is the
very course which the Supreme Court set aside by its order dated

20
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
05.08.2026 in the appeal against Sunil Kumar Singh (supra), read in the
light of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). Exclusion, by contrast, treats every
candidate alike: it neither rewards nor penalizes the choice made upon a
defective question. Accordingly, the two questions having been
excluded, the question paper shall be treated as comprising 148
questions, and the qualifying standard shall be computed at the
prescribed percentages, in accordance with the principle recognized in
Rishal (supra) that “the question paper has to be treated as containing the
question less the deleted questions.
49. The nature of the relief must be determined by examining the
substantive pleadings and the reliefs sought, rather than by isolating the
wording of an individual prayer clause. The power to grant relief,
however, must be exercised in accordance with law and within the
framework of the controversy raised before the Court. In this regard, the
principles relied upon from Rajesh Kumar (supra), require consideration
alongside the specific nature of the relief sought in the present petition.
50. Based upon foregoing paragraphs, this Court concludes that the
principle laid down in Smt. Shimla Singh governs the present
controversy, the appropriate relief be granted to the petitioners in terms
of the following directions:
(i) Question Nos. 36 and 37 of the Master Set shall be excluded from
evaluation, or dealt with in such manner as is consistent with the binding
judicial precedent discussed hereinabove.
(ii) The consequential benefit in respect of the aforesaid questions shall
be extended uniformly to all similarly situated candidates in accordance
with Ashok Yadav, Ran Vijay Singh, and Smt. Shimla Singh cases
(supra), without restricting such benefit solely to candidates who
selected either of the options accepted as correct.
(iii) The respondents shall recompute the scores of the petitioners in
accordance with the aforesaid directions and correct their respective
results and scorecards, to the extent necessary.

21
WRIT – C No. - 16959 of 2026
51. It is clarified that the relief granted to the petitioners shall not, by
itself, confer any right to appointment or selection in any subsequent
recruitment process. Their entitlement shall remain confined to the
correction of their UPTET-2026 results and the consequential eligibility
status, subject to the applicable rules.
52. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is
disposed of.
October 28, 2026
Anil K. Sharma
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad