The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has directed the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission (UPESSC) to exclude two defective questions from the final evaluation of the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test (UPTET-2026) results. The ruling effectively mandates a re-calculation of scores for all candidates, ensuring that the benefit of the correction is not limited solely to those who challenged the answer key but is extended to the entire cohort of examinees.

The dispute arose after the commission identified that for Question Nos. 36 and 37 of the Master Set, two separate options were deemed correct in the final answer key, despite the examination structure requiring candidates to select only one. Four candidates, who were declared unsuccessful by narrow margins, approached the court, arguing that the inclusion of such ambiguous questions invalidated the assessment process. The petitioners, having scored marginally below the 82-mark qualifying threshold, contended that the commission’s decision to award marks only to those who happened to select one of the two accepted options created an arbitrary and unfair competitive advantage.

In a significant observation, Justice Vinod Diwakar underscored the fundamental requirement for fairness in public examinations. The Court noted that when a body responsible for setting an exam admits to multiple correct answers for a single-choice question, the item loses its utility as a reliable indicator of knowledge. The Court remarked, “A multiple-choice question in which the candidate is required to select a single correct answer from four options ceases to serve any evaluative purpose once the examining authority itself accepts two of those options as correct, for the question is then no longer capable of discriminating between a candidate who knows the answer and one who does not.”

The UPESSC had previously argued that the relief should be restricted to candidates who had identified the accepted options. Furthermore, the commission contended that the failure of the petitioners to lodge formal objections to the provisional answer key within the stipulated timeframe should bar them from seeking judicial intervention. However, the Court rejected this preliminary objection, relying on established principles that once an error is recognized in the final answer key, the correction must attain a degree of universality to maintain the integrity of the selection process.

Drawing upon the precedent set in Smt. Shimla Singh v. State of U.P. , the Court highlighted that the UPTET is fundamentally a qualifying examination, distinct from competitive exams where inter-se merit is the primary objective. Consequently, the Court emphasized that equity demands a standardized approach to handling flaws in question papers. By treating the examination as a test of minimum competency, the Court reasoned that any deviation or error by the examiners should not penalize the student community.

To address the defect, the High Court directed that the two offending questions be deleted entirely from the assessment. This methodology ensures that the evaluation is performed on the basis of the remaining 148 questions rather than the original 150. As Justice Diwakar observed, “The question paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted questions.” This approach removes the element of chance associated with selecting a specific option from a flawed question, providing a uniform baseline for all candidates regardless of their initial attempts on those specific questions.

The logistical impact of this decision requires the UPESSC to re-evaluate the OMR sheets of all applicants and issue updated scorecards reflecting the adjusted qualifying percentages. While this provides a pathway for the petitioners to potentially meet the 60% qualifying threshold, the judgment clarifies that this judicial relief does not automatically grant a right to future government appointment. The correction of the UPTET-2026 result serves primarily as an acknowledgment of the procedural error and a corrective measure to restore the merit-based standard of the qualifying exam.

The commission’s previous methodology—crediting marks only to those who chose the "accepted" options—was characterized by the Court as resting on the "fortuity of a choice." By opting for the total exclusion of the questions, the Court has effectively aligned the current examination with standard practices in administrative law, which prioritize the avoidance of discriminatory results when systemic errors are discovered after the fact.

The ruling serves as a strong reminder to examination authorities of the heightened duty of care required when drafting question papers. It also clarifies that in the context of mass qualifying examinations, the responsibility for demonstrably erroneous key answers rests with the examining body, and candidates should not be the ones to suffer the consequences of poor coordination or oversight. The UPESSC is now tasked with implementing these changes across its database, ensuring that the revised results are declared in accordance with the Court’s mandate. The matter remains a critical case study on the limits of administrative discretion in evaluation and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that qualifying thresholds are maintained through fair, transparent, and consistent processes. Following this decision, the commission must undertake the necessary administrative adjustments to re-calculate the scores and provide updated documentation to all affected candidates within the scope of the Court's directives.