Nazim Ahamad & others. … v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

not figure in the result of the preliminary examination. Question no. 27 of Set ‘A’ of General Studies paper reads as under:- “Which of the following pairs is not correctly matched? Mineral (a) Dolomite (b) Soap Stone (c) Graphite (d) Silica sand - - - - Location Dehradun, Pithoragarh Chamoli, Bageshwar Almora, Nainital Pauri Garhwal” According to the petitioners, the initial answer given by the Commission in the provisional answer key was option (d), in the amended provisional answer key the answer was option (d) but at the time of issuing the final answer key the Commission changed the answer and deleted the question, which is completely incorrect, as according to Directorate of Geology and Mining Annual Report 2024-25, the correct answer is option (d). Question no. 41 of Set ‘A’ of General Studies paper, which reads as under:- “Consider the following statements about “Right to Education” and choose the correct answer:

1. It try to achieve the aim of ‘Education for All’.

2. Earlier a provision of free and compulsory education was provided in Part IV of the Constitution.

3. It became Fundamental right after 91st Constitutional Amendment. (a) Only 1 and 2 (b) Only 2 and 3 (c) Only 1 and 3 (d) 1,2 and 3” According to the petitioners, in the provisional answer key as well as final answer key, the question has been deleted however, the option (a) is the correct answer. 4 Question no. 126 of Set ‘A’ of General Studies paper which reads as under:- “Consider the following statements with reference to Trade Union Movement in India:

1. All India Trade Union Congress was founded in 1920.

2. Lala Lajpat Rai was elected its first President.

3. All India Trade Union Federation was formed by S.A. Dange in 1929. Select the correct answer from the code given below: (a) Only 1 & 2 (b) Only 1 & 3 (c) Only 2 & 3 (d) Only 2 & 4” According to the petitioners, the Commission has deleted the aforesaid questions which, according to the petitioners, ought not to have been deleted by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent–Selecting Body in deleting Question Nos. 27, 41, and 126 of Booklet Series–A from the Final Answer Key is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the mandate enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The deletion of the said questions has been effected without any cogent reasons, rational basis, or supporting documentary evidence on record, thereby rendering the entire exercise unsustainable in law. It is submitted that in both the provisional answer key dated 04 July 2025 and the amended answer key dated 03 September 2025, Question No. 27 was retained with Option-D as the correct answer. However, in the final answer key, the said question was deleted without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to demonstrate the correctness of Option-D, which was duly supported by authentic documentary material. By deleting Question Nos. 27, 41, and 5 126, respondent–Selecting Body has deprived petitioners, who had correctly attempted the said questions, of rightful marks, thereby disqualifying participation the Upper Subordinate Service (Main) Examination–2023. Conversely, candidates who had wrongly attempted these questions stand unjustly benefited by award of marks, leading to a clear breach of fairness and equality in evaluation. It is further submitted that as per Instruction No.5 of the Question Booklet, only one option for each question was correct, and the options exercised by the petitioners for the impugned questions correspond to the only correct answers supported by authoritative sources. The arbitrary deletion of these questions has, therefore, resulted in substantial prejudice to the petitioners, who have missed the qualifying cutoff by a narrow margin of 0.25 to 2.00 marks. In absence of any rational justification or record-based reasoning for such deletion, the impugned action of the Selecting Body is ex facie arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the principles of natural justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire process of finalization of answer key for the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2025 (Preliminary) has been conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme, established procedures and principles of transparency, fairness and natural justice. The advertisement was issued on 07.05.2025; Preliminary Examination held on 29.06.2025. Provisional Answer Key was published on 04.07.2025 on the official website. The objections against Provisional Answer Key were specifically invited. Petitioners filed no objections 6 whatsoever, thereby accepting the Provisional Key as correct and estopped from raising grievance at post-finalization stage.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioners challenge the deletion of Question Nos. 27, 41 and 126 from Booklet Series-A in the Final Answer Key for the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2025 (Preliminary) held on 29.06.2025, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Provisional Answer Key was published on

04.07.2025 inviting specific objections, which the petitioners failed to file, thereby accepting it as correct and estopped from challenging post-finalization. The scope of judicial review in examination matters is confined to manifest arbitrariness or procedural illegality. The Courts do not re-evaluate questions absent cogent evidence. No material demonstrates procedural lapse in finalization or lack of rational basis for deletions, following statutory process including objection window.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, has held that candidates not objecting to provisional keys stand estopped from post-result challenge, prioritizing process integrity. Failure to utilize the objection mechanism bars Article 14 claims, as affirmed in relevant precedents limiting interference absent proven prejudice warranting judicial intervention. Petitioners missing cutoff by narrow margin does not override established procedure. 7

7. Taking into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and the provisions contained in Regulation 9(iv) of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Examination Result Preparation Procedure) Regulations, 2022 and also keeping in view the facts of the present case, no interference by this Court is warranted.

8. In these circumstances, the writ petition does not merit interference and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048 5365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9 D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL