Re-evaluation of specific exam questions and creation of supernumerary posts to protect already recommended candidates.

The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”) challenged a common judgment dated 04.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge.

The Single Judge had adjudicated upon a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) regarding discrepancies in the answer key for Booklet D, Question 64.

Experts had opined that both options ‘B’ and ‘C’ were correct, contrary to the Commission's initial key which only recognized ‘B’.

The Single Judge directed re-evaluation for candidates who opted for either option, while ensuring that previously recommended candidates (list dated 09.02.2025) remained undisturbed by creating supernumerary posts if necessary.

During the appeal, the Commission sought to withdraw its challenge as the State had accepted the order.

1. Whether the directions of the learned Single Judge regarding the re-evaluation of Question 64 and the creation of supernumerary posts should be set aside or modified.

2. Whether the contempt proceedings initiated against the Commission for non-compliance should be closed upon the withdrawal of the appeals.

The court proceeded based on the principle of judicial finality and the discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions for equitable relief, such as the creation of supernumerary posts to protect the interests of already selected candidates while rectifying errors for others.

The principle of voluntary withdrawal of litigation, where a party may abandon a challenge if they undertake to comply with the lower court's directions within a specific timeframe.

The Court noted that the Commission, upon instructions, decided not to press the appeals because the State of Uttarakhand had not challenged the Single Judge’s order and was ready to comply with the directive to create supernumerary posts.

The Commission explicitly requested that the Single Judge’s order not be treated as a precedent and sought closure of pending contempt proceedings.

The Court observed that the Advocate General had previously suggested this middle-ground approach (protecting successful candidates while re-evaluating unsuccessful ones) during the writ proceedings.

Given the Commission's undertaking to comply within three months and the lack of objection from the State or private respondents, the Court found no reason to adjudicate on the merits of the expert opinions regarding the question.

The Court held that the Commission must comply with the Single Judge’s directions within three months from the date of the order, and consequently ordered the closure of pending contempt proceedings against the Commission, with a caveat that should the Commission fail to comply within the stipulated three-month period, the applicants could pray for the revival of such proceedings.