Allahabad High Court
SHEELU AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court held that no relief could be granted as the result had already been revised by the Expert Committee, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of candidates for the Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) post, challenged the final answer key dated 28 July 2026, specifically Question No. 96, seeking its quashment and a mandamus directing the authorities to treat option C as correct and revise their marks and selection status. The respondents, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Commission, informed the court that an Expert Committee had been constituted under an earlier writ order (Writ‑A No. 12062 of 2026) and had already submitted its report, leading to a revised result notified on 26 August 2026. The petitioners also relied on a recent decision of a Lucknow bench (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P., Writ‑A No. 7693 of 2026) which held that the court cannot act as an expert when an expert committee has decided the matter. The Allahabad High Court held that, since the result had already been revised based on the Expert Committee’s findings, no further relief could be granted. Consequently, the writ petition was consigned to the record, effectively dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the answer key and direct a specific answer for Question No. 96 when an Expert Committee has already examined and revised the result.
- Whether a mandamus can be issued to treat a particular option as correct in the absence of an expert determination.
- Whether the petition remains maintainable after the result has been revised pursuant to the Expert Committee’s report.
Subjects
- answer key
- expert committee
- mandamus
- certiorari
- TGT Sanskrit examination
- revision of result
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16045 of 2026
Sheelu And 7 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indra Bahadur Singh, Pradeep Kumar
Mishra, Vaibhav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Vaibhav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Sri K. Shahi, learned Advocate appearing for the Commission
and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned/final answer key dated 28.07.2026, insofar as it relates to Question No. 96
of the final answer provided for the TGT (Sanskrit) Examination conducted for
recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Sanskrit as well as the
Revised Final Result dated 26.08.2026;
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities to treat Option "C (Three)" as the correct answer to Question
No.96 of the Final Answer Key and to accordingly award the marks prescribed for the
said question to the petitioners who had correctly answered the said question; Issue
any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstance of the present case;
(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners for selection and
appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on the basis of their
revised marks and merit, and, if upon such revision the petitioners fall within the zone
of selection, to accord them all consequential benefits in accordance with law."
3. It has been informed by Sri K. Shahi, learned Advocate appearing for
the Commission, that the Expert Committee was constituted pursuant to
the order dated 14.08.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 12062 of 2026,
Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Pandey vs. State of U.P. and another. The
Expert Committee has already submitted its report, and after revising the
result, the notification was issued on 26.08.2026.
WRIA No. 16045 of 2026
2
4. He further places reliance on a decision of this Court 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 a
similar claim was rejected; holding that the Court cannot further sit as an
expert declaring questions to be incorrect or being out of syllabus; when
now an Expert Committee has further given the report and declared the
result.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted at this stage, as the
petitioners' result has already been revised on the basis of the report of the
Expert Committee.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to record.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
October 1, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…