IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.499 OF 2025 Shashank Pant. …… Petitioner Vs.

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & another. …..Respondents Presence:

Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. B.D. Kandpal and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent.

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 calling for the record and quashing the impugned Final Answer Key (Annexure No10 to the writ petition) of Examination-2023, so far as the Selection Commission has deleted Question No. 55 of Question Booklet Series-C inasmuch as the answer given by the Petitioner for the said question is correct and accordingly revise the marks allotted to the Petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned Final Answer Key (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) of Examination-2023 so far as it pertains to Question No. 60, 71 and 76 of Booklet Series-C inasmuch as the options given by the Selection Commission for the said questions are wrong and against the statutory provisions and authentic Books.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Selecting Body to revise the Final Result dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) of the Preliminary Examination-2023 by including the Roll Numbers of the Petitioner and to declare the Petitioner qualified for appearing in the Mains Examination of Uttarakhand Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2023.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus constituting an independent Expert Committee of Subject Experts to look into the Question Nos. 55, 60, 71 & 76 of Question Booklet Series-C of Preliminary Examination-2023 and examine the correct answers to these questions.”

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 ‘C’. He attempted all questions in the said examination, including Questions No. 55, 60, 71, and 76. The petitioner selected Option ‘b’ as the correct answer for Question No. 55, Option ‘d’ for Question No. 60, Option ‘c’ for Question No. 71, and Option ‘d’ for Question No. 76. 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. 55, Option ‘d’ for Question No. 60, Option ‘c’ for Question No. 71, and Option ‘b’ for Question No. 76. Objections were invited from candidates with respect to the provisional answer key. Since the petitioner’s responses for Questions No. 55, 60, and 71 were consistent with the corresponding options provided in the provisional answer key, he did not raise any objection regarding those questions. However, the petitioner submitted an objection online pertaining to Question No. 76 alone. 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. In the said amended answer key, Question No. 55 was deleted; the correct option for Question No. 60 was modified from Option ‘d’ to Option ‘b’; and for Question No. 71, the correct option was changed from Option ‘c’ to Option ‘d’. In respect of Question No. 76, the Commission retained its earlier position, maintaining Option ‘b’ as the correct answ