Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 09-09-2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (appellant) vs. Ashok Yadav & Ors. (respondents).
- The appeal (Civil Appeal No. /2026 @ SLP (C) No. 12895/2026) challenges a High Court judgment dated 20‑03‑2026, which itself reviewed a Division Bench order dated 20‑01‑2021.
- Background: The Commission advertised 3,133 Village Development Officer posts in 2016, conducted a written test, and declared results on 18‑07‑2018. A writ petition (Writ A No. 10221 of 2019) sought one mark for the respondent on Question 68, alleging the correct answer should be option C (Humayunnama authored by Gulbadan Begum) rather than the Commission’s answer B.
- The High Court, relying on an expert report dated 10‑08‑2020, awarded the respondent one mark, holding that option C could be correct based on authorship.
- The Commission contended the expert report was equivocal and that the question did not specify authorship as the pairing criterion; therefore, option B (the Commission’s answer) was appropriate.
- The Supreme Court examined the scope of judicial review of answer keys, citing Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, emphasizing that courts may intervene only when a mistake is glaring and evident without inferential reasoning.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s impugned order, and dismissed Writ A No. 10221 of 2019.
- It held that the Commission did not commit a glaring error in selecting option B; the expert report did not categorically declare option B incorrect.
- Consequently, the High Court’s interference was beyond its jurisdiction, especially in the review jurisdiction.
- All pending applications, if any, were ordered to stand disposed of.
Topics: Judicial Review, Public Service Examination