Reetesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court12 Aug 20252025 INSC 10312025 INSC 1031

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of miscellaneous applications challenging a Revenue Lekhpal examination. The Court restored specific applications pending as of April 24, 2025, allowing them benefit of a re-evaluation order. However, it dismissed applications filed after the cutoff, rejected claims for grace marks, and refused to modify orders where applications were filed post-dates and were defective.

What did the court decide?

Restored and allowed IAs 41099/2025, 48299/2025, and 294693/2024; dismissed MA 1306/2025, 1309/2025, 1431/2025, and rejected MA 1308/2025.

Reetesh Kumar Singh versus the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

Corrected Non-Reportable

¶2

2025 INSC 1031

¶3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application No. 1306 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12069 of 2024

¶4

Reetesh Kumar Singh & Ors.

¶5

…Appellants/ Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

With Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12070-74 of 2024

¶10

With Miscellaneous Application No. 1308 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12075 of 2024

¶11

With Miscellaneous Application No. 1309 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12076 of 2024

¶12

And

¶13

Miscellaneous Application No.1431 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No.5503 of 2025

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.10.08 18:57:12 IST Reason:

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

¶18

1. These MAs are filed in a batch of appeals which dealt with the examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereinafter the Commission) during the year 2021-22 for the post of Revenue Lekhpal. Originally a dispute was raised with respect to Question No. 88 of Booklet Series ‘F’, which on coming before this Court by Order dated 21.11.2023, it was directed that the answer choice of ‘D’ be considered as the correct answer. It was directed that the entire result has to be re-evaluated by the Commission.

¶19

2. Later, on 19.02.2024, in MA No. 276/2024 in SLP(Civil) No. 25828/2023; in which SLP the earlier order was passed on 21.11.2023, it was the submission of the State Government that there cannot be petitions repeatedly filed challenging the very same examination since almost 8,000 applicants who came out successful are waiting to get appointment. Noticing the same it was

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

¶22

specifically directed that the High Court shall consider any objection raised with respect to the questions/answers only if the same were filed on or before 21.11.2023. Subsequently, this Court by Order dated 24.04.2025 directed a re-evaluation to be carried out with respect to question nos. 10, 58, 63 and 90, belonging to Booklet Series No. ‘B’.

¶23

3. The present MAs are filed alleging that the IAs referred to in the said MAs though filed and pending as on 24.04.2025, by reason of the Registry having not posted it along with other IAs, the petitioners lost out a chance to be considered. Their names stood excluded insofar as the re-evaluation carried out; especially since this Court by Order dated 24.04.2025 directed only re-evaluation of the papers of the applicants who had approached this Court as on that date.

¶24

4 . The Office Report dated 11.08.2025 also indicates that on 01.08.2025, there was a direction to the Registry to clarify as to the exclusion of the

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

¶27

applicants in the MAs before us; specifically, as to whether it had not been posted because of an inadvertence on the part of the Registry. We have looked at each of the IAs and the following orders are passed.

¶28

M.A. No. 1306/2025 in C.A. No. 12069/2024 & M.A. No. 1309/2025 in C.A. No. 12076/2024

¶29

5. We find that in the above cases the issue raised was with respect to question nos. 15, 62, 65, 67 and 99 and the dismissal of the writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was for reason of the same having been filed subsequent to 21.11.2023; clearly barred by the order of this Court in MA No. 276/2024 in SLP(C) No. 25828/2023 dated 19.02.2024. Hence the said MAs are dismissed. The appellants cannot have any claim as per the order of this Court dated 24.04.2025.

¶30

M.A. No. 1307/2025 in C.A. Nos. 12070-74/2024

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

¶33

6. The above MA relates to IA No. 41099/2025. It is seen that the above IA along with some other IAs were rejected on 15.05.2025 finding it to be totally misconceived. The Office Report confirms that the IA was filed and was pending as on 24.04.2025, in such circumstances, the IA is restored and the same is allowed permitting the applicants therein, the benefit as per the Order dated 24.04.2025.

¶34

M.A. No. 1308/2025 in C.A. No. 12075/2024

¶35

7. The above IA was also dismissed on 15.05.2025 along with IA No. 90445/2025 and another IA. The Office Report indicates that as on 23.04.2025, the IA was defective and hence there can be no modification of the Order dated 15.05.2025. The MA stands rejected.

¶36

8. It is also pointed out by the Registry that IA No. 48299/2025 and IA No. 294693/2024 were filed respectively on 21.02.2025 and 17.12.2024 and were also pending as on 24.04.2025 when the Civil Appeals were disposed of. In such circumstances, the

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

¶39

said IAs are also allowed, and the applicants therein are found entitled to the benefit of the Order dated

¶40

24.04.2025.

¶41

M.A. No.1431 of 2025 in C.A. No.5503 of 2025 I.A. No.220493/2024 and I.A. No.295481/2024 in C.A. No.5503 of 2025

¶42

9. M.A. No.1431 of 2025 in C.A. No.5503 of 2025

¶43

is taken on board. The above I.A.s are filed by the persons who lost out on the answer to Question No.88 in Booklet ‘F’ being changed. They claim grace marks, since on re-evaluation, one mark was reduced for them, leaving them out of the final merit list published on 30.12.2023. There cannot be any such grace mark especially, since this Court had determined the correct answer and directed reevaluation on that basis. The said applications stand dismissed.

¶44

The MAs/IAs are ordered accordingly.

¶45

.…….…………………….….. CJI. (B. R. GAVAI)

¶46

Page 6 of 7

¶47

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

¶48

.……….…………………….….. J.

¶49

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

¶50

.……….…………………….….. J.

¶51

(N.V. ANJARIA)

¶52

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 12, 2025.

¶53

Page 7 of 7

¶54

M.A. No. 1306 of 2025 in CA No. 12069 of 2024 Etc.

Reetesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reetesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangavel versus the Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited

Kulwinder Kaur versus Parshant Sharma

Brij Bihari Gupta versus Manmet

Meena Jain versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Vanita versus M/S Shriram Insurance Company Ltd.

Haseena versus the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.