Allahabad High Court
BRIJ LAL PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court held that no relief could be granted as the petitioner did not file a timely objection, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the selection process under Article 226.
Summary
The petitioner, Brij Lal Pratap Singh, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Lecturer (PGT) recruitment selection and to direct a re‑evaluation of his answer sheet, alleging that the correct answer to question 32 was (A) but the commission marked (C) as correct, resulting in a loss of four marks and his non‑selection. He claimed to have lodged an objection to the evaluation, but the commission pointed out that the statutory deadline for objections (12‑June‑2026) had passed and no objection was on record. The court considered whether it could intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution when the procedural deadline was missed. It held that the petitioner failed to make a timely objection and therefore no jurisdiction existed to interfere with the selection process. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, emphasizing the necessity of complying with prescribed objection timelines in recruitment examinations.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the selection proceedings of a recruitment examination under Article 226 when the petitioner failed to file a timely objection.
- Whether the court can direct re‑evaluation of an answer sheet after the deadline for objections has expired.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief for alleged loss of marks due to an alleged marking error.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- recruitment examination
- objection deadline
- re‑evaluation
- administrative law
- selection process
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11878 of 2026
Brij Lal Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Shri K. Shahi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"i.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash the entire selection proceedings of Lecturer (PGT) Post
Direct Recruitment Examination-02/2022.
ii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to re-valuate the answersheet of
petitioner in which question no.32, petitioner is rightly marked (A),
but the respondent no.2 is wrongly stated that the question no.32(C)
is correcdt answer, due to this reasons petitioner is found 4 marks
less, if the petitioner's answer sheet is re-valuate then petitioner
found 4 marks and selected for the post of PGT Civics."
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has rightly
marked (A) as the correct answer to the Question No.32; but the
Commission is contending that the correct answer to Question No.32 is
(C). Petitioner has made the following averments by way of paras-15 and
16 of the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, which is reproduced
below:-
"15. That the petitioner has filed his objection before the respondent
no.2 in respect of re-valute the answersheet but the respondent no.2
is not considered the objection of the petitioner which is still
pending.
WRIA No. 11878 of 2026
2
16. That in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is
expedient in the interest of justice that the entire selection
proceeding of Lecturer (PGT) Post Direct Recruitment Examination
-02/2022 may be stayed and also direct the respondent no.2 to re-
valuate the answersheet of petitioner in which question no.32,
petitioner is rightly marked(A), but the respondent no.2 is wrongly
stated that the question no.32(C) is correct answer, due to this
reasons petitioner is found 4 marks less, if the petitioner's answer
sheet is re-valuate then petitioner found 4 marks and selected for
the post of PGT(Civics) otherwise the petitioner will suffer
irreparable loss and injury which can not be compensated in any
terms of way."
4. Shri K. Shahi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Commission has
pointed out that the last date for filing the objection was 12.06.2026 and
now not only the result has been declared but the allotments has also been
made; and the petitioner did not file any objections, as per his
instructions.
5. On a pointed out from the learned counsel for the petitioner, he could
not state that the petitioner had actually filed the objection.
6. In view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted in exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
and no good grounds have been made out for interference in the matter.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 11, 2026
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…