THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.498 OF 2025 Suryansh Tiwari. …… Petitioner Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another. ……Respondents Presence:

Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. B. D. Kandpal and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Judgment reserved on: 09.12.2025 Judgment delivered on: 18.12.2025 Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)

Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

“i). Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the final result dated 31^st October 2025 (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent Commission, to the extent it denies the Petitioner marks for Questions No. 120, 132, 145, and 158, and wrongly drops Question No. 129 of Answer Booklet-A.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent Commission to award the Petitioner one mark each for the correct answers to Questions No. 120, 132, 145, 158 and 129, totaling 5 (Five) additional marks and 1 additional marks for the wrong deduction of 0.25 marks for Questions No. 120, 132, 145, and 158; consequently, to re-calculate the Petitioner's score and include the Petitioner in the list of candidates eligible to appear for the Mains Examination.”

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

On 16.05.2025, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for the Uttarakhand Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2023. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner duly submitted his application and participated in the Preliminary Examination. The petitioner was allotted Question Booklet Series ‘A’. He attempted all questions in the said examination, including Questions No. 120, 132, 145, 158 and 129. The petitioner selected Option ‘d’ as the correct answer for Question No. 120, Option ‘c’ for Question No. 132, Option ‘c’ for Question No. 145, Option ‘a’ for Question No. 158 and Option ‘b’ for Question No. 129. Subsequently, on 04.09.2025, the respondent–Commission uploaded the provisional answer key on its official website. As per the provisional answer key, Option ‘b’ was shown as correct for Question No. 120, Option ‘a’ for Question No. 132, Option ‘d’ for Question No. 145, Option ‘d’ for Question No. 158 and Commission dropped the Question No. 129. Objections were invited from candidates with respect to the provisional answer key. Petitioner submitted objections to several answers, including the ones under challenge in the present writ petition. After obtaining the opinion of subject experts on the objections submitted by various candidates, the Commission issued a revised (amended) answer key on 30.09.2025. On 31.10.2025, the Commission declared the result of the Preliminary Examination and published the list of candidates qualified for the Mains Examination along with the cut-off marks. The last candidate qualifying in the Open Category had secured 162.1218 marks. The Commission also published the individual marks of each candidate. The petitioner, as per the published result, secured 161.1117 marks and was thereby rendered ineligible for the Mains Examination.

3. Question no. 120 of Set ‘A’ of General Knowledge and Acts & Laws paper, which reads as under:-

“Which of the following is an essential condition for a valid Waqf under Muslim Law?

(a) The waqf must be created by a Muslim.

(b) The property must be dedicated in perpetuity.

(c) The waqf must be for charitable purposes.

(d) All of the above”

According to the petitioners, the Commission’s answer is premised upon an obsolete legal position. The petitioner submit that his answer is in consonance with the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which received the assent of the Hon’ble President and came into force on 8th April 2025, i.e., prior to the issuance of the advertis