##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Vijay Sonkar & 3 Ors. …..Petitioner(s)

Versus State of U.P. & 2 Ors. …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankita Singh, Taniya Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Kumar Singh, Udayan Nandan Court No. – 6 AFR HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the respondents to award consequential marks to the petitioners in respect of two questions in the final answer key of the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as “UPTET-2026”), which, according to the petitioners, have been found to admit of two correct options. The petitioners seek the following reliefs:

(i) Award of one mark to petitioner no. 1 in respect of Question No. 37 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question No. 52 in his Question Booklet;

(ii) Award of one mark to petitioner no. 2 in respect of Question No. 36 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question No. 35 in her Question Booklet;

(iii) Award of two marks to petitioner no. 3 in respect of Question Nos. 37 and 36 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question Nos. 49 and 59, respectively, in her Question Booklet; and (iv) Award of one mark to petitioner no. 4 in respect of Question No. 36 of the Master Set, corresponding to Question No. 60 in his Question Booklet, to the extent that such marks have not already been credited to the respective petitioners.

3. In the light of the judgment¹ of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioners forgoes the prayers made in the petition, confining her arguments to the submission that Question Nos. 36 and 37 ought to be treated as deleted, being defective questions which the expert Committee has found to admit of two correct answers, contrary to the scheme of the question paper, or equal marks should have been given to all the candidate, irrespective of the fact whether the candidates have chosen either of the two admittedly correct options or not.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1, 3 & 4 are candidates possessing Basic Teacher Certificate (BTC)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), and petitioner no.2 is a student currently pursuing third semester of D.El.Ed. All the petitioners belong to the Other Backward Class category and claimed to have eligible to participate in the Teacher Eligibility Test as may be conducted by Central and State Governments.

5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents for not awarding the marks to the petitioners in respect of Question Nos.36 & 37 of the Master Set (and the corresponding questions in the Booklet Series allotted to them), for each of which the Commissions on final answer key accepts two options as correct, and consequently declaring

1 Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690

afresh result of UP TET-2026 declared on 26.08.2026, on the scores computed without giving due effect to the said marks.

6. The National Council for Teacher Education issued guidelines on 11.02.2011 for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Point No. 9 of the said guidelines prescribes the qualifying marks as 60% or more in the TET examination, while leaving it open to the school managements, including Government, Local Bodies, Government-Aided and Unaided institutions, to grant concessions to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons with disabilities, etc., in accordance with their respective extant reservation policies.

7. For conducting UPTET-2026, respondent no. 2 issued Advertisement No. 01/UPTET/2026 dated 20.03.2026, which was published on the website of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj (here