The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation.
Facts Of The Case:
The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series ‘F’. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer ‘D’ be treated as correct for this question and ordered the Commission to re-evaluate the entire result. Subsequently, on 19.02.2024, the Court restricted further challenges, directing the High Court to only consider objections filed on or before 21.11.2023. Later, on 24.04.2025, the Court further directed a re-evaluation concerning Question Nos. 10, 58, 63, and 90 from Booklet Series ‘B’, but limited this relief to the applicants who had approached the Court by that date. The present Miscellaneous Applications were filed by candidates whose intervention applications, though pending as of 24.04.2025, were not considered by the Registry due to alleged inadvertence, leading to their exclusion from the re-evaluation process. Some applicants also sought grace marks, claiming they lost a mark after the re-evaluation of Question No. 88 and were consequently excluded from the final merit list.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case originates from challenges to the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination. The matter first reached the Supreme Court, which, on 21.11.2023, allowed a specific challenge regarding Question No. 88 and ordered a full re-evaluation. Subsequently, on 19.02.2024, the Court, in a miscellaneous application, imposed a cut-off date of 21.11.2023 for filing any further objections to the exam questions to prevent repeated litigation. Later, on 24.04.2025, the Court allowed a new set of challenges concerning four other questions but limited the directed re-evaluation only to the applicants who had approached the Court by that specific date. The present miscellaneous applications were then filed by candidates alleging their pending intervention applications were not considered on 24.04.2025 due to a Registry oversight, seeking inclusion in the re-evaluation process, while others sought grace marks. The Court’s final order of 12.08.2025 decided these applications based on their filing dates and procedural status.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground
Court Observation:
The Court observed that its prior order dated 19.02.2024 had expressly barred any petitions challenging the examination that were filed after the cut-off date of 21.11.2023. It noted that applications filed subsequent to this date were therefore not maintainable and were rightly dismissed by the High Court. The Court further observed that for those Intervention Applications (IAs) that were legitimately pending as on the crucial date of 24.04.2025, the benefit of the re-evaluation order must be extended, attributing their initial exclusion to an inadvertence on the part of the Registry. However, the Court firmly rejected the claim for grace marks, observing that once a correct answer is judicially determined and re-evaluation is directed, the resultant change in marks is a logical consequence and does not entitle a candidate to any compensatory marks.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The final decision dismissed Miscellaneous Applications No. 1306 and 1309 of 2025, along with No. 1308 of 2025, as the claims were barred for being filed after the court-mandated cut-off date. It allowed Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2025 and restored specific Intervention Applications (IAs) that were pending as of 24.04.2025, entitling those applicants to re-evaluation benefits. The court also dismissed the plea for grace marks in MA No. 1431 of 2025, upholding the results of the court-ordered re-evaluation process.
Case Details:
Case Title: Reetesh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Civil Appeal No.:Civil Appeal No. 12069 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 12070-74 of 2024 Date of Judgement: August 12, 2025. Judges/Justice Name: Justice B. R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here