Uttarakhand High Court
Anshuka Bhandari And Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3531-DB
Judgment Reserved on:04.05.2026
Judgment Delivered on :08.05.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No.105 of 2026
Anshuka Bhandari and Another -----Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners
Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel along with Mr.
M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent nos.1 and 3.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent no.2/ UKPSC.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)
1. The petitioners have filed this petition with
the following prayers:
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari to quash the revised cut
off list dated 22.01.2026 along with the
revised marks list (Annexure-07) qua the
Petitioners inasmuch as, due to the same the
present Petitioners who were already declared
as selected for the next stage, are not unable
to participate in the Mains Examination, as
being contrary to the judgement of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh vs
State Of U.P. 2018 (2) SCC 357;
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, directing the
Respondent No. 02 to allow and consider the
candidature of the Petitioners, for
1
2026:UHC:3531-DB
participation in the Mains Examination.”
2. An advertisement was issued on 15.05.2025
by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission inviting
applications from eligible candidates for the
Uttarakhand Judicial Services (Civil Judge Junior
Division) Examinations. The preliminary examination
was held on 31.08.2025 and the cut-off list was
published on 31.10.2025. The cut-off marks for various
categories were as follows:
Table 01:Original Cut-off marks
S.No. Category/Sub Cut-off marks
Category
1. Unreserved 162.1218
2. Unreserved / Unreserved 148.4856
Female
3. Other Backward Classes 154.7984
4. Schedule Tribes 113.1329
3. The petitioners who appeared under the
category of UR/UF obtained the following marks and
were declared successful:
Table 02:Marks and Category of the Petitioners
S.No. Petitioner Sr. of the Roll Category
Name Original Number
Mark List and Marks
1. Anshuka 3046 Roll UR/UF
Bhandari Number606918
Marks
149.74792
2026:UHC:3531-DB
2. Anushree 3369 Roll UR/UF
Khatri Number607699
Marks
148.9904
4. It is case of the petitioners that vide notice
dated 07.11.2025 successful candidates were asked to
pay the further examination fees for the main
examination and the name of the petitioners were
included in the said list.
5. It appears that WPSB No.498 of 2025 and
WPSB No.499 of 2025, “Suryansh Tiwari Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another” and “Shashank Pant Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another” were filed before the
Court challenging the answer keys and the aforesaid
writ petitions were decided on 18.12.2025 whereby
directions were issued to the selecting body to
recompute the results of the preliminary examination
and in pursuance thereof the revised cut-off list was
published on 22.01.2026, which has been put to
challenge in the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that a faulty and incorrect compliance has been
undertaken by the selecting body of the final judgment
and order passed by the writ court as there was no
direction to oust the selected candidates.
3
2026:UHC:3531-DB
7. He further submits that no opportunity of
hearing was provided to the petitioners and the said
action of the respondents is contrary to the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ran
Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2018(2) SCC 357.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the selecting body ought to have retained the
candidates who were declared successful in the
preliminary examination as the said process was
adopted by the commission in the selection held earlier.
He also places reliance on the judgment and order
passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Girraj Prasad and order passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Hari Kishan Vs. Rajasthan High
Court (enclosed as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder
affidavit).
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submits that
the entire exercise was carried out by the selecting
body in compliance of the directions issued by the court
in WPSB No.498/2025 and WPSB No.499/2025 and the
said order has attained finality.
10. He submits that the direction issued by the
Court was to the effect that the recomputation of the
4
2026:UHC:3531-DB
results of the preliminary examination was to be done
by deleting question no.158 of Set ‘A’, to consider and
treat Option (c) as the correct answer for Question No.
145 and also treat option (d) as the correct answer for
Question No.120.
11. He submits that though the petitioners have
stated in the writ petition that a faulty and incorrect
compliance has been undertaken by the selecting body
of the aforesaid order but no material has been placed
on record to demonstrate as to how the said
compliance was faulty.
12. He further submits that WPSB No.124 of 2026
was filed wherein a similar stand was taken that the
selecting body had adopted a faulty and inappropriate
procedure and initially the present writ petition was
connected with the aforesaid writ petition but later on
WPSB No.124 of 2026 was withdrawn. Thus, as there
is no challenge to the judgment and order passed in
WPSB No.498/2025 and WPSB No.499/2025, as such,
the action taken by the selecting body towards the
compliance of the said order, cannot be said to be
arbitrary or illegal.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and the issue which is to be considered by this Court in
5
2026:UHC:3531-DB
the present writ petition is that as to whether the
revised cut-off list published on 22.01.2026 by the
selecting body is in accordance with the directions
issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in WPSB No.498/2025
and WPSB No.499/2025 or the procedure adopted by
the selecting body in preparation of revised cut-off list
is arbitrary.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the procedure adopted by the selecting
body was faulty, however, there is no material to
demonstrate that the said process was faulty, illegal or
arbitrary. We have examined the select list published by
the commission and the directions issued by the Court
and we are of the view that the directions issued by the
Court have been complied by the commission in totality.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there was no direction to oust the
already selected candidates like petitioners is bereft of
merit as the directions issued were to recompute the
result while re-evaluating the response of all candidates
and to publish the merit list as per the procedure
prescribed under the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission’s Regulation 2022.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
6
2026:UHC:3531-DB
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). However, in the
said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the
Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer
sheet of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter
and the academic matters are to be left to the
academicians.
17. In the present case, the Co-ordinate Bench of
the Court in WPSB No.498/2025 and WPSB
No.499/2025, however, taking into consideration the
regulations framed by the commission held in
paragraph no.15 to 19 as follows:
“15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission, through
its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and
another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, has
observed that the Constitution Courts must
exercise great restraint in matters regarding
public examination and should be reluctant to
entertain the plea challenging the correctness
of the key answers.
16. In the case in hand, the Regulations of
2022 clearly states that where the question is
structurally defective, such a question shall be
excluded from the question paper and the
marks for remaining questions shall then be
increased proportionately so that the total
maximum marks remain unchanged.
17. Learned counsel for the Commission fairly
conceded that the option provided by the
Subject Experts with regard to Question No.
145 of Set ‘A’ is apparently incorrect. This
Court is of the view that since question
no.145 pertains to house breaking and its7
2026:UHC:3531-DB
definition is specifically explained in
Illustration (a) appended to Section 445 of
the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the correct
answer would be Option ‘c’. Illustration (a)
appended to Section 445 of the Indian Penal
Code is reproduced below:
“(a) A commits house-trespass by making a
hole through the wall of Z’s house, and
putting his hand through the aperture. This is
house-breaking.”
18. In view of the above factual and legal
position, this Court is constrained to hold that
there were two correct answers to Question
No. 158 of Set ‘A’ of the Uttarakhand Judicial
Services Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Examination-2023. The Commission ought to
have deleted this question as provided under
Regulation 9(iv) of the Regulations of 2022.
Furthermore, the learned counsel for the
Commission has himself admitted that there
were two correct answers to Question No. 158
of Set ‘A’, therefore, the said question ought
to have been deleted by the Commission.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
allowed. This Court, upon due consideration
of the submissions advanced and the material
placed on record, holds that Question No.129
does not specifically indicate as to whether it
relates to Shia Law or Sunni Law, therefore,
the Commission has rightly deleted this
question. Further, the answer furnished by
the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in
respect of Question No. 132 of Set ‘A’ of the
aforesaid Preliminary Examination is correct
in law and does not warrant any interference
by this Court. However, it is further held that
the answer provided by the Commission in
relation to Question No. 145 of Set ‘A’ is
erroneous, as the correct answer ought to
have been Option (c), in view of the statutory
position and the illustration appended to
Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code. This
Court further declares that answer to
Question No. 120 of Set ‘A’ to be option (d).
This Court further declares that since there
were two correct answers to Question No. 158
of Set ‘A’, rendering it incapable for the
8
2026:UHC:3531-DB
candidates to give a definite or legally
sustainable answer, therefore, the said
question shall stand deleted from the process
of evaluation.”
18. The Co-ordinatae Bench in paragraph no.20 of
the order concluded as hereunder:
“20. The Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission is, therefore, directed to re-
compute the result of the aforesaid
Preliminary Examination by deleting Question
No.158 of Set ‘A’ and also consider and treat
Option (c) as the correct answer for Question
No. 145 and also treat option (d) as the
correct answer for Question No.120, while re-
evaluating the responses of all candidates and
publish the merit list as per the provisions
contained in the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission Regulations, 2022.”
19. It is an admitted fact that the directions
issued in paragraph no.20 of the aforesaid judgment
has not been put to challenge and has become final and
thus, the exercise conducted by the selecting body of
computation of result of the preliminary examination
while re-evaluating the response of all candidates
cannot be said to be an illegal or arbitrary exercise. We
are of the view that this Court cannot sit in appeal and
re-examine the correctness of the directions issued by
the Co-ordinate Bench.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgment and order passed by the
Rajasthan High Court on 18.05.2012 in the case of
9
2026:UHC:3531-DB
Giriraj Prasad Sharma and the order dated 30.01.2013
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Krishan
Vs. Rajasthan High Court in Civil Appeal No.943/2013
(copy enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the Rejoinder
Affidavit), to contend that the petitioners who were
initially declared successful in the preliminary
examination had acquired a right to sit in the main
examination even after the revision of the select list.
We are not inclined to accept the said submission as the
facts of the aforesaid case are different and inapplicable
in the present case. Moreover, no preposition of law has
been propounded in the aforesaid judgments to the
effect that once a name of a candidate is included in the
select list then any indefeasible right is accrued in
favour of such candidate. A Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs.
Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held that mere
inclusion of a name of a candidate even in the final
select list does not confer any right of appointment in
its favour. The only caveat is that the decision should
not be arbitrary.
21. In the present case, the name of the
petitioners were included in the select list of candidates,
who were declared successful in the preliminary
examination, however, their name were excluded in the
10
2026:UHC:3531-DB
revised cut-off list issued on 22.01.2026 on
recomputation of the result as per the directions of the
writ court. The action of the selecting body cannot be
said to be arbitrary as the entire select list was revised
and it is not a case that the petitioner alone were
singled out. Thus, it cannot be said that by mere
inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the initial
select list they had acquired any indefeasible right in
their favour.
22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered view that the action of the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission in issuance of the revised
cut-off list on 22.01.2026 of the Preliminary
Examination of the Uttarakhand Judicial Services (Civil
Judge Junior Division) Examination is neither arbitrary
nor illegal and the same is in accordance with law. The
writ petition lacks merits and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
23. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated:08.05.2026
SS
SUKHBANT
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
11
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd
129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEB
D2B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D,
cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.05.08 12:52:20 +05’30’
