Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 05-08-2026
Case Overview
- Parties: appellant – U.P. Public Service Commission (through its Chairman) and others; respondents – Sunil Kumar Singh & others.
- Counsel for appellant: Ms. Himanshi Girdhar, assisted by Mr. Siddharth (AOR), Mr. Deepanshu Grover.
- No respondent appeared before the Court.
- The appeal challenges a High Court judgment and order dated 9 December 2016 (Writ‑A No. 28971 of 2016) which had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondents.
- High Court directions (summarized):
a. Re‑evaluate answer scripts of the preliminary examination, delete questions 25, 66, 92 and award full marks for question 44 to candidates who chose option (b) or (c).
b. Candidates qualifying after re‑evaluation become entitled to appear in the main examination, which the Commission must hold at the earliest.
c. The result of the main written examination already held would be withheld until the re‑evaluated candidates’ results are declared; if already declared, no further exercise for those candidates until a fresh main exam is conducted.
d. Conduct an interview based on the merit list drawn from both the earlier main written exam and the one to be held pursuant to the re‑evaluation.
e. Candidates who had appeared in the first main written exam but fail the preliminary examination after re‑evaluation would have their candidature cancelled.
- The High Court criticised the Commission’s procedures, noting discrepancies in the question paper and answer key, and suggested enhancing expert remuneration.
- The Supreme Court, relying on its own jurisprudence, particularly Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 357, observed that:
- If a statute permits re‑evaluation, the authority may allow it; otherwise, the court may intervene only in rare, clearly demonstrated cases of material error.
- Courts lack expertise to re‑evaluate answer sheets and should presume the correctness of answer keys.
- Benefits of doubt should go to the examination authority, not the candidate.
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with expert academic decisions and that its directions were indefensible.
- The operation of the High Court’s impugned order had been stayed by this Court on 7 April 2017; consequently, the directions were never implemented.
- The Court noted that the writ petition was filed in 2016 concerning the 2016 State/Upper Subordinate Services examinations, and that fresh examinations have been conducted over the past nine years, indicating the respondents have likely lost interest and are not represented.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s impugned order.
- The civil appeal is allowed, confirming that the High Court’s re‑evaluation directions are null and void.
- Any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
Topics: Judicial Review, Public Service Examination