Disposed¶10

Pushpangya Patel and 25 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2026WRIA/3339/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ - A No. 3339 of 2026; Pushpangya Patel and 25 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others (appearance recorded for Respondent-U.P. Public Service Commission); High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 32; Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; order dated March 11, 2026; counsel heard for some time; matter adjourned to 16th March, 2026 at 12.30 PM; adjournment order only — no merits, holdings, statutes or precedents.

What did the court decide?

Matter put up for further hearing on 16th March, 2026 at 12.30 PM; no issue decided and no interim relief recorded in this order. ¶10

Pushpangya Patel and 25 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3339 of 2026

¶3

Pushpangya Patel And 25 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mahendra Narain Singh

¶9

Court No. - 32

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned advocate for petitioners and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent-Commission.

¶12

Petitioners before this Court have participated in preliminary examination for appointment of Assistant Teachers (Trained Graduate) (Male/Female Branch) Examination, 2025, however, they remained unsuccessful.

¶13

It is further case of petitioners that they have made objections to answer-key, however, respondent-Commission has not published revised key, therefore, they were not able to get their numbers corrected.

¶14

In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition that revised answer-key be published and result be modified.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent-Commission has placed on record a judgment dated 14.10.2025 passed by Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar and others vs. The Union of India and another, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2024 wherein it is held that Supreme Court has accepted Commission's decision that final answer-key shall be published before declaration of final result. For reference, entire judgment is quoted below :-

¶16

"1. The applications for impleadment/Intervention

¶17

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶18

¶19

are allowed.

¶20

2. Delay condoned in Diary No. 16761/2024.

¶21

3. Through the prayers in the three Writ
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, coupled with the prayer in the Writ
Petition before the High Court, from which the
Transfer Petition arises, the Petitioners seek
individual reliefs with respect to the
preliminary examinations conducted by UPSC.
However, taken together, these petitions give
rise to two public law concerns, first of which
relates to transparency in the conduct of the
examinations by UPSC, and second relates to
crystallisation of a grievance for appropriate
redressal.

¶22

4. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG for
the Union, Mr. Kapil Sibal. Sr. Counsel assisted
by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the
petitioners, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Counsel for
the Union Public Service Commission. Mr. Jaldeep
Gupta, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Pranjal
Kishore to assist us as Amici Curiae.

¶23

5. We are happy to dispose of these Writ
Petitions in view of the affidavit filed by the
Public Service Commission accepting the
reformative suggestions of the learned Amici
Curiae.

¶24

6. The short and necessary facts leading to the
order that we are going to pass on the basis of
the affidavit filed by the Public Service
Commission are as follows:-

¶25

7. The Petitioners have contended that the

¶26

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶27

¶28

answer-key, cut-off marks and marksheet of the
preliminary examination should be published
immediately after the examination is conducted.
They would also contend that publication of this
information at the end of the examination process
is against principles of transparency and
fairness.

¶29

8. In the written submission, the learned Amici
Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Pranjal Kishore have
suggested the following reform;

¶30

"35. The current practice of providing the answer
key to the preliminary examination after the
final examination is completed does provide a
modicum of transparency in as much as if it is
found that egregious errors have crept in at the
stage of the preliminary examination, the Court
is not powerless to give appropriate directions.
If, however, it is felt greater transparency is
needed to be given, the following suggestions are
made:

¶31

a. A provisional answer key to the preliminary
examination should be published a day after the
examination is held.

¶32

b. Examinees should be allowed to file objections
to the questions as well as to the answers in the
provisional answer key on the Prep portal, within
a week.

¶33

e. Each objection should be supported by three
authoritative sources. Objections which are not
so supported should be rejected at the threshold.

¶34

d. In cases were objections are recetved, UPSC
should refer the same to a committee of experts,

¶35

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶36

¶37

who shall re-examine the same. This can be done
by the same commitee that already exists to
decide objections to the questions. The final
answer key can then be decided for the evaluation
of the answer-sheets.

¶38

Alternatively, the disputed question and answer
can be excluded for evaluation for all
candidates. Such a course was suggested by this
Hon'ble Court in Kanpur University (supra) at
Paragraph 18; and Ran Vija, Singh (supra) at
Paragraphs 19 and 31.

¶39

e. The final answer key (post-consideration of
the objections) need not be disclosed at this
stage and can be disclosed at the end of the
examination process, as is the case now.

¶40

J. In case a particular answer in the final
answer key that is published after the results is
found to be incorrect by a Court, the Court
should mould relief in a manner that the entire
process is not disturbed. This can be done for
instance, by allowing the successful petitioner a
chance to directly answer the mains examination
in the next year."

¶41

9. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Public Service Commission has
submitted that the Commission has deliberated
upon various factors, including suggestions of
the learned Amici. Considering the enormity of
the examination that it conducts year after year,
balancing the value of transparency with
efficiency, practicality and integrity, a
conscious and a balanced decision has been taken
by the Commission. This decision is reflected in
the affidavit filed before us, which we are

¶42

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶43

¶44

extracting hereinbelow in its entirety;

¶45

"AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2- UPSC

¶46

I. Himanshu Kumar, Joint Secretary (Exam), Union
Public Service Commission, presently at New
Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-

¶47

1. That the aforesaid Writ Petition has been
filed by the Petitioner wherein UPSC has been
impleaded as Respondent. The said Writ Petition
is pending consideration and final hearing by
this Hon'ble Court.

¶48

2. That during the pendency of Writ Petition UPSC
has deliberated upon various factors including
the suggestion of Ld' Amicus appointed by this
Hon'ble Court to assist in the matter. That as a
consequence of comprehensive deliberation and
considering the pious role assigned to the UPSC
as a constitutional body, the Commission has
arrived at a conscious and well considered
decision as under:

¶49

Publishing the Provisional Answer key, after the
Preliminary Examination is conducted.

¶50

b) Representations/objections will be sought from
the candidates who appeared in the examination.
Each such representation/objection should be
supported by three authoritative sources.
Objections which are not so supported should be
rejected at the threshold. However, the
Commission will decide whether the sources
produced are authoritative or not.

¶51

The Provisional Answer Key and
objections/representations received from

¶52

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶53

¶54

candidates on question paper as well as answer
keys shall be placed before set/team of experts
of the concerned discipline/subject. who shall
undertake an in-depth consideration of all the
aspects and will finalise the answer keys.

¶55

Such finalized answer key by the aforesaid team
of subject/discipline experts shall constitute
the basts of the declaration of the results of
Preliminary Examination.

¶56

e) The final answer key shall be published after
declaration of the final results.

¶57

3. The Commission destres to start following the
modalities explained in the aforesaid decision as
expeditiously as possible. The decision taken by
the UPSC is considered to be an effective and
adequate redressal of the grievances raised in
the petition and to enhance the level of
transparency in the functioning of the UPSC and
also to further the cause of public interest. The
matter being sub-judice before this Hon'ble
Court, it is considered appropriate to place the
aforesaid decision for kind consideration by the
Hon'ble Court and for disposing of the Writ
Petition in the light of the decision. 4. It is
humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to pass the appropriate orders and
dispose of the petition in the light of the
decision extracted herein above."

¶58

10. The affidavit explains that the Commission
seeks to implement the above decision as
expeditiously as possible.

¶59

11. In this view of the matter, we can dispose of
these Writ Petitions and Transfer Petition in

¶60

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶61

¶62

terms of decision as indicated in the affidavit
filed by the Commission. The Commission may
formulate the necessary guidelines for
implementing the decision.

¶63

12. So far as the individual grievances of the
petitioners are concerned, they may approach the
High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, if so advised.
If the Writ Petitions are filed, the High Court
may consider and dispose them of expeditiously.

¶64

13. Before parting, we place on record the
valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Jaideep
Gupta, Sr. counsel as assisted by Mr. Pranjal
Kishore as Amici Curiae. We must also appreciate
the stand take by the Public Service Commission
and the positive assistance rendered to the Court
by Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Counsel of this Court.

¶65

14. With these observations, the Writ Petitions
and the Transfer Petition are disposed of.

¶66

15. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stands disposed of."

¶67

Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that if answer key is published after final result, petitioners will be highly prejudiced since they will miss a chance to dispute revised answer key which is a valuable right of petitioners being candidates in examination.

¶68

Learned counsel for respondent-Commission submits that Commission is bound by judgment of Himanshu Kumar and others (supra).

¶69

I have considered above submissions and I am of the view that there is substance in argument of learned Senior Advocate for petitioners that if revised key is published after final examination result, they will not be able to agitate it to the extent that they will not be permitted to appear in

¶70

WRIA No. 3339 of 2026

¶71

¶72

main examination rather they will have to wait for years since it is not a case where recruitment process in question is undertaken on yearly basis.

¶73

Still considering that above referred judgment passed by Supreme Court has accepted the affidavit of respondent that revised answer key will be published only after main examination is conducted, this Court has no other option but to accept it, therefore, relief sought in present writ petition cannot be granted.

¶74

However, this order will not come in the way if petitioners approach Supreme Court or the Commission concerned, while taking decision of answer-key on the basis of above referred order, will take note of circumstances under which this writ petition is filed.

¶75

Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.

¶76

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶77

March 16, 2026

¶78

N. Sinha

¶79

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpangya Patel and 25 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpangya Patel and 25 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Heera Lal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajpal Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 7 Others

Jeet Bahadur Rawat vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramesh Chand vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Mohan Pandey @ Vijay Mohan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others