Supreme Court restores applications pending as on re-evaluation cut-off, dismisses belated and defective petitions

A bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria heard a batch of miscellaneous applications arising from challenges to the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission’s Revenue Lekhpal examination held in 2021‑22, including disputes over corrected answer keys and claims that certain interlocutory applications were not placed before this Court when re‑evaluation directions were issued.

The Court directed that some interlocutory applications (IAs) which were on the file and pending as on 24.04.2025 be restored and given the benefit of the re‑evaluation order dated 24.04.2025, while rejecting or dismissing others that were either filed after prescribed cut‑offs or were defective. The Court emphasised that earlier orders constrained late challenges: The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We find that in the above cases the issue raised was with respect to question nos. 15, 62, 65, 67 and 99 and the dismissal of the writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was for reason of the same having been filed subsequent to 21.11.2023; clearly barred by the order of this Court in MA No. 276/2024 in SLP(C) No. 25828/2023 dated 19.02.2024. Hence the said MAs are dismissed. The appellants cannot have any claim as per the order of this Court dated 24.04.2025." The Court noted some IAs had been earlier rejected as "totally misconceived" and refused to reopen those orders where defects persisted. It further held that "There cannot be any such grace mark especially, since this Court had determined the correct answer and directed re‑evaluation on that basis."

Background The dispute arose after this Court had earlier corrected the answer to Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F' and directed re‑evaluation of results; subsequent orders limited the High Court and other forums to consider objections only if filed on or before 21.11.2023, and directed limited re‑evaluation on 24.04.2025 for additional questions in Booklet Series ‘B’. Several applicants later filed MAs and IAs alleging that their applications had been placed on the record and were pending when the Civil Appeals were disposed on 24.04.2025, but the Registry had not posted those IAs for consideration and thus their papers were excluded from the re‑evaluation exercise. The Registry filed an Office Report and the Court examined each IA. The Court allowed restoration where the record showed the IA was filed and pending as on 24.04.2025 (for example IA No. 41099/2025 and others), thereby permitting those applicants to be considered under the re‑evaluation order of 24.04.2025. Applications that were filed after the cut‑off established by earlier orders, or which were defective on the said date, were dismissed or rejected; applications seeking "grace marks" after the Court had fixed the correct answer and ordered re‑evaluation were specifically refused. The Court directed that the MAs/IAs be disposed in accordance with these findings.

Case Details: Case No.: Miscellaneous Application No. 1306 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 12069 of 2024 (and batch MAs Nos. 1307/2025, 1308/2025, 1309/2025, 1431/2025 as noted) Case Title: Reetesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]