Allahabad High Court
SANJU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed; no relief is granted as the expert committee’s findings stand.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanju Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash the result declaration dated 26‑08‑2026 for the Sanskrit subject and mandamus to declare specific exam questions as out of syllabus or incorrect. The petition relied on an expert committee report that had revised the result, declaring question 61 out of syllabus while upholding questions 41 and 96. The court noted a prior order in Sandhya Yadav v. U.P. Education Service Selection Commission where the expert committee’s findings were accepted and no further relief was granted. It also referred to a Lucknow coordinate bench decision in Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. that dismissed a similar challenge to question 96. Relying on these precedents and the expert report, the court held that no further relief could be granted and consigned the petition to the record.
Issues considered
- Whether the result declaration for the Sanskrit subject can be quashed on the ground of erroneous question framing.
- Whether questions 41, 61, and 96 are out of syllabus or incorrectly framed and thus merit judicial intervention.
- Whether the expert committee’s findings are binding and preclude further relief.
- Whether the High Court can issue mandamus directing the respondent to alter the declared result.
Subjects
- certiorari
- mandamus
- result declaration
- syllabus
- expert committee
- education service selection
- Sanskrit examination
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14227 of 2026
Sanju Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditi Pandey, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Ms. Aditi Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.
Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI
quashing the impugned result declaration dated 26.08.2026 (Annexure
No. 1 to the writ petition) issued by Respondent No. 2 so far as Sanskrit
Subject is concerned;
ii. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing Respondents to Declare Question No. 41 as
out of syllabus, Question No. 61 as incorrect being wrongly framed, and
Option C of Question No. 96 is correct so far as Sanskrit Subject is
concerned and declare the result accordingly;
iii. issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
iv. Award the cost of the Petition in favour of petitioner."
3. At the outset, Shri K. Shahi, Advocate has placed before this Court an
order dated 02.09.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 13729 of 2026 (Sandhya
Yadav Vs. U.P. Education Service Selection Commission and Another).
For ready reference, the same is reproduced below:
WRIA No. 14227 of 2026
2
"1. Report dated 24.08.2026 and the notification dated 26.08.2026 are
taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ram Kesh, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and
Sri Tanak Sahi, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.Sahi, Advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- Commission submits that
the expert committee has revised the result and issued a notification on
26.08.026; by way of which one question No.61 has been found to be
outside syllabus, whereas question Nos.96 and 41 were found to be
correct. He has further placed before this Court an order dated
24.08.2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in Writ A No.7693
of 2026 ( Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), by way of which
this Court while ascertaining the challenge to question nos. 96 in the
examination, for appointment to the post of T.G.T, has dismissed the writ
petition on 24.08.2026.
4. Be that as it may be, now since the experts have also submitted a report
finding the question No.96 to be correct. No further relief can be granted
to the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is consigned to record. "
4. In view of the aforesaid report submitted by the experts, no further
relief can be granted to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is consigned to record.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 30, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…