Abhishek Tomar others v. State of Uttarakhand others

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the interveners. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 703 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission held a combined selection for the posts of (i) Review Officer and (ii) Assistant Review Officer, against vacancies available in Uttarakhand Secretariat, Uttarakhand 1 Public Service Commission and Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand. Total 136 vacancies were notified vide advertisement dated 8.9.2023, issued by Public Service Commission.

3. Petitioners participated the selection process consisting of Preliminary Examination, followed by Written Examination and Computer Efficiency Test.

4. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that initially when the result was declared on 28.3.2025, name of the petitioners was included in the select list, however, the said select list was cancelled on 2.4.2025 and a revised select list was published on 11.4.2025, in which their name was altogether missing. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the revised select list, published on

11.4.2025.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body, the written examination consisted of three papers, namely- (i) General Studies, (ii) Hindi Composition and (iii) Essay, out of which first one was objective test and the remaining two i.e. Hindi Composition and Essay were subjective/descriptive.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body points out that a private firm was engaged by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for scanning the OMR sheets, in which answer to objective type questions are given by blackening the slots, large number of complaints were received candidates, and upon enquiry, it was found that there are discrepancy the marks awarded 2 candidates for objective (MCQ) questions. It was revealed that the Standard Operating Procedure to be followed in such cases, namely to scan the OMR sheet by low resolution and thereafter by high resolution for removing the mismatch in the OMR sheets, was not followed which had led to wrong allocation of marks to the candidates. It is pointed out that earlier, select list was published on 28.3.2025, complaints were received in the evening of 28.3.2025, since on 29.3.2025,

30.3.2025 and 31.3.2025 office of Commission remained closed, therefore, on reopening of office on

2.4.2025, a decision was taken at the highest level in the Commission to cancel the select list published on

28.3.2025. The decision taken by the Commission on

2.4.2025 is produced in Court, is taken on record . The said decision is signed by four members and also the Chairman of the Commission.

7. Perusal of the said decision indicates that the Commission had provided that revised result shall be prepared and declared as soon as possible.

8. Learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission further submits subjective/descriptive examination in respect of Hindi Composition and Essay also, mistakes were found, which had occurred while transcribing the marks from answer-sheet to the award sheet and from award sheet to the computer. Thus, it is submitted that the entire exercise was done afresh and after ensuring that all errors which crept in while preparing the result are removed, a revised result was published on 11.4.2025. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the 3 Commission that the firm, which was found responsible for the discrepancy in the earlier select list published on

28.3.2025, was decided to be replaced and Notice Inviting Tender have been published by the Commission so that some new firm for the work of scanning of OMR sheets may be engaged. They further submit that one Section Officer and two Review Officers of Public Service Commission have been charge-sheeted on

20.8.2025 for their negligence, while transcribing marks from answer scripts to the award sheet and from award sheet to the computer. Thus, it is submitted that it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the Commission, which has now been rectified.

9. Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 840 of 2025 submits that in the earlier select list, published on

28.3.2025, petitioner (Chandra Kumar) scored 53 marks in essay paper, however, in the revised result, published on 11.4.2025, his score of marks for Essay paper was reduced to 43.

10. Learned counsel the Public Service Commission has produced the answer-script of Hindi Composition and Essay Papers of petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 840 of 2025 in Court, in a sealed cover, which was opened in the presence of learned counsels.

11. Perusal of the answer-script of Essay paper of Chandra Kumar reveals that the examiner had awarded 43 marks to him for Essay. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the Selecting Body that while transcribing the marks from the answer script of Essay paper to the award-sheet and from 4 award sheet to the computer, by mistake, petitioner’s score in Essay paper was shown as 53 and that mistake was subsequently rectified, when pursuant to the decision taken by the Commission on 2.4.2025, the entire result was scrutinized.

12. Thus, the allegation made by the petitioners against the Commission appears to be unfounded. It is a case of correction of mistake by the Commission and the decision taken by the Commission to revise the select list cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, which may warrant interference of this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

13. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of. Interim order passed in these petitions are vacated. The Commission shall be at liberty to declare the result in respect of all advertised vacancies. The answer-script of petitioners for Essay and Hindi Composition papers, which were produced in Court in a sealed cover are returned back to Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the Commission.

14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Dt: 20.11.2025 Navin (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 5