The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that inclusion in an initial merit list for a competitive public examination does not confer an indefeasible right to proceed to the next stage when a court-ordered recomputation of results leads to a revised cut-off. This judgment reinforces the principle that merit-based selection processes must remain dynamic and compliant with judicial directions, even if it results in the exclusion of previously declared successful candidates.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Anshuka Bhandari and Anushree Khatri, appeared in the Uttarakhand Judicial Services (Civil Judge Junior Division) Examination 2025. They were initially declared successful in the preliminary examination based on the original cut-off list published on 31.10.2025. However, following a court order directing the recomputation of results due to errors in answer keys, a revised cut-off list was published on 22.01.2026, which excluded them from the list of qualified candidates for the mains examination.
Key Facts
- Advertisement for the examination was issued on 15.05.2025 by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC)
- Preliminary examination was conducted on 31.08.2025
- Original cut-off marks published on 31.10.2025:
- Unreserved (UR): 162.1218
- Unreserved Female (UR/UF): 148.4856
- Other Backward Classes (OBC): 154.7984
- Scheduled Tribes (ST): 113.1329
- Petitioners’ marks:
- Anshuka Bhandari (Roll No. 606918): 149.7479 (UR/UF)
- Anushree Khatri (Roll No. 607699): 148.9904 (UR/UF)
- Both petitioners were included in the initial list of successful candidates and were notified on 07.11.2025 to pay fees for the mains examination
- Writ Petitions WPSB No. 498/2025 and WPSB No. 499/2025 were filed challenging the answer keys
- On 18.12.2025, a coordinate bench of the Uttarakhand High Court directed:
- Deletion of Question No. 158 of Set ‘A’ (due to two correct answers)
- Acceptance of Option (c) as correct for Question No. 145 (based on Section 445 IPC Illustration (a))
- Acceptance of Option (d) as correct for Question No. 120
- Revised cut-off list published on 22.01.2026, resulting in the exclusion of petitioners
- Petitioners were not given a prior hearing before the revised list was published
Procedural History
- 15.05.2025: Advertisement issued by UKPSC
- 31.08.2025: Preliminary examination conducted
- 31.10.2025: Original cut-off list published
- 07.11.2025: Notice issued to selected candidates for mains fee payment; petitioners included
- 18.12.2025: Coordinate Bench judgment in WPSB No. 498/2025 and WPSB No. 499/2025 directing recomputation
- 22.01.2026: Revised cut-off list published by UKPSC
- 08.02.2026: Writ Petition (S/B) No. 105 of 2026 filed before Uttarakhand High Court
- 04.05.2026: Judgment reserved
- 08.05.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Argued that the revised cut-off list violated the principle laid down in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357, which prohibits courts from re-evaluating answer sheets
- Contended that once declared successful, they acquired a vested right to appear in the mains examination
- Relied on Giriraj Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Hari Krishan v. Rajasthan High Court to assert that inclusion in the initial list creates a protected right
- Asserted that the UKPSC failed to provide a hearing before excluding them
- Claimed the recomputation was faulty and arbitrary
For the Respondents
- Stated that the revised cut-off list was a direct and mandatory compliance with the binding directions of the coordinate bench in WPSB No. 498/2025 and WPSB No. 499/2025
- Emphasized that the directions were clear: delete Question No. 158, accept Option (c) for Q.145, and Option (d) for Q.120
- Argued that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the recomputation process
- Noted that WPSB No. 124/2026, which raised similar grievances, had been withdrawn
- Cited Shankarsan Das v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 to assert that mere inclusion in a selection list does not create a right to appointment or further participation
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the revised cut-off list dated 22.01.2026
- A writ of mandamus directing UKPSC to allow them to appear in the mains examination
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a candidate who is initially declared successful in a competitive examination acquires an indefeasible right to proceed to the next stage when a court-ordered recomputation of results, based on identified errors in answer keys, leads to a revised cut-off list that excludes them.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. to argue that courts should not interfere with academic evaluations. However, they misapplied the principle: the coordinate bench did not re-evaluate answer sheets but corrected specific, demonstrable errors in the answer key under Regulation 9(iv) of the UKPSC Regulations 2022. They further cited Giriraj Prasad Sharma and Hari Krishan to assert that inclusion in the initial list creates a vested right. They claimed the exclusion without hearing violated principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the recomputation was not discretionary but mandatory under the coordinate bench’s order, which had attained finality. It emphasized that the petitioners failed to show any procedural flaw in the recomputation. The State relied on Shankarsan Das v. Union of India to establish that selection lists are provisional until final appointment, and no right accrues merely from inclusion. It also noted that the revised list applied uniformly to all candidates, not selectively.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the coordinate bench’s directions and the statutory framework under the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations 2022. It held that the directions issued on 18.12.2025 were not advisory but binding, and compliance was obligatory.
"The directions issued were to recompute the result while re-evaluating the response of all candidates and to publish the merit list as per the procedure prescribed under the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission’s Regulation 2022."
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, noting that the Apex Court’s concern was with judicial overreach into academic evaluation - a situation absent here. The coordinate bench had acted within its authority by correcting objectively verifiable errors in the answer key, not by re-assessing candidate responses.
The Court further distinguished Giriraj Prasad Sharma and Hari Krishan, observing that those cases involved administrative delays or procedural lapses, not court-mandated recalculations based on defective questions. The Court emphasized:
"Mere inclusion of a name of a candidate even in the final select list does not confer any right of appointment in its favour. The only caveat is that the decision should not be arbitrary."
The Court found no arbitrariness in the revised list, as it was the result of a uniform recalibration affecting all candidates. The exclusion of petitioners was not targeted but consequential to the corrected scoring. The absence of a prior hearing was deemed immaterial because the revision was not an administrative decision but a judicially mandated recalibration.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the revised cut-off list dated 22.01.2026 was lawful, non-arbitrary, and fully compliant with the directions of the coordinate bench. The petitioners’ exclusion from the mains examination was upheld. No relief was granted. The Court directed that all pending applications be disposed of as well.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Selection Lists Are Provisional Until Finalization
- Practitioners must advise clients that inclusion in an initial merit list for competitive exams does not create a vested right to proceed to the next stage
- Any subsequent recalibration based on judicial or administrative correction of answer keys can lawfully alter eligibility
- Legal challenges must focus on procedural fairness and arbitrariness, not on the mere fact of exclusion
Judicial Directions Bind All Candidates Equally
- When a court orders recomputation of results due to defective questions, the revised list applies uniformly
- Candidates cannot claim protection under prior selection if the recalibration is legally mandated and procedurally sound
- Challenges to such recomputations must be directed at the original order, not its implementation
No Right to Hearing in Mandatory Recalculations
- Where a revision is compelled by a binding court order, the requirement of a pre-decisional hearing does not apply
- The process is not administrative discretion but execution of a judicial mandate
- Practitioners should not rely on natural justice arguments in cases of court-ordered recalculations
