Allahabad High Court
PRITI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
A belated challenge to an examination result and subsequent appointment cannot be entertained, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Priti Devi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board to re‑examine specific questions and re‑evaluate her marks in the Trained Graduate Teacher Examination‑2021. She argued that the delay in filing was due to her late discovery of the alleged errors in Questions 26 and 29. The respondents contended that the advertisement and results were issued in 2021, the allotment had already been made, and a belated challenge could not be entertained. The Court examined whether a writ could be issued to disturb a completed selection process long after the results were declared. It held that a challenge raised after the results and allotments have been finalized is untenable and the petition lacks merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to entertain a belated writ petition challenging examination results?
- Can a mandamus be issued to direct re‑examination and re‑evaluation of marks after the results have been declared and appointments made?
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ jurisdiction
- Mandamus
- Examination result challenge
- Belated petition
- Secondary Education Service Selection Board
- Trained Graduate Teacher Examination
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13520 of 2026
Priti Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Chandra Mishra, Om Prakash
Chaube
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection
Board, Prayagraj to re-examine the answer of question No.26 and
99 and 2 deleted questions with regard to the Booklet series 'C'
subject 'Art' after taking the experts opinion from the committee of
expert and declared the petitioner result accordingly of Trained
Graduate Teacher Examination-2021 of subject 'Art' in pursuance
of the advertisement No.01 of 2021 within stipulated time.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent-Secretary Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Selection Board, Prayagraj to re-evaluating the petitioner
marks on the basis of expert opinion."
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the delay in
filing the present writ petition is on account of the fact that the result
regarding Question Nos.26 and 29, came to his knowledge subsequently.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Commission submits that the advertisement was of the year 2021 being
Advertisement No.1 of 2021 and results were also declared on 26.10.2021
and allotment has already been made; and as such at a belated stage, the
challenge raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that a
belated challenge to the Advertisement No.1 of 2021 and especially in the
circumstances that the results has already been declared and allotments
have been made, cannot be entertained; in exercise of powers under
WRIA No. 13520 of 2026
2
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. However,
no order as to costs.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…