Mere Inclusion in Selection List Confers No Indefeasible Right to Participate in Competitive Examinations

The petitioners applied for the Uttarakhand Judicial Services (Civil Judge Junior Division) Examination 2025

Initially, based on the preliminary examination held on 31.08.2025, they were declared successful and asked to pay fees for the Mains examination

Following a challenge to the answer keys in previous writ petitions (Suryansh Tiwari and Shashank Pant cases), a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court on 18.12.2025 directed the selecting body to recompute the results by deleting/correcting specific questions

Consequently, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) issued a revised cut-off list on 22.01.2026, which resulted in the petitioners’ exclusion from the Mains examination

The petitioners challenged this exclusion, claiming they had an indefeasible right to participate once originally selected

1. Whether the revised cut-off list published on 22.01.2026 by the UKPSC was arbitrary or in violation of the directions issued by the Court in previous litigations.

2. Whether a candidate acquires an indefeasible right to participate in an examination process merely because their name was included in an initial selection list.

The Court applied the principles of judicial restraint in academic matters and public examinations as established in UPPSC v. Rahul Singh (2018).

The mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as per Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991).

The limited scope of judicial interference in the re-evaluation of answer sheets as established in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018).

The Court found that the UKPSC acted strictly in compliance with the specific directions of the Co-ordinate Bench to re-evaluate all candidates’ responses and recompute the merit list according to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, 2022.

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that they should have been "retained" despite the merit revision, noting that the judicial mandate was to re-evaluate the entire body of candidates.

The Court observed that since the petitioners did not challenge the underlying judgment that ordered the recomputation, they could not claim the subsequent compliance by the UKPSC was arbitrary.

The Bench emphasized that the revision was a systemic correction, not an act of "singling out" the petitioners, and therefore lacked any element of legal malice or technical error.

The Court held that the revised cut-off list dated 22.01.2026 was legal, non-arbitrary, and performed in total compliance with prior judicial mandates; consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.