Supreme Court Orders on UP Lekhpal Exam: Key Rulings on Re-evaluation and Grace Marks
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed several miscellaneous applications concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted during 2021-22. The case, which originated from disputes over specific questions in the examination, has seen multiple rounds of litigation, with candidates seeking re-evaluation and inclusion in the final merit list.
The court’s order, dated August 12, 2025, dealt with various applications filed by candidates who claimed they were excluded from the re-evaluation process due to administrative oversights. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, carefully examined each application to determine whether the candidates were entitled to the benefits of the court’s earlier order dated April 24, 2025.
Background of the Case
The dispute began with Question No. 88 of Booklet Series ‘F’ in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission’s examination for the post of Revenue Lekhpal. The Supreme Court, in its order dated November 21, 2023, directed that answer choice ‘D’ be considered correct for this question and ordered the Commission to re-evaluate the entire result.
Later, on February 19, 2024, the State Government raised concerns about repeated petitions challenging the same examination, highlighting that nearly 8,000 successful applicants were awaiting appointment. The court then specifically directed that the High Court could only consider objections regarding questions and answers if they were filed on or before November 21, 2023.
Subsequently, on April 24, 2025, the Supreme Court expanded the re-evaluation to include question numbers 10, 58, 63, and 90 from Booklet Series ‘B’. However, this re-evaluation was limited to applicants who had approached the court as of that date.
The Present Applications
The current miscellaneous applications were filed by candidates who claimed that their interim applications, though filed and pending as of April 24, 2025, were not considered because the Registry had not posted them along with other applications. These applicants argued that they lost the chance to be included in the re-evaluation process due to this administrative oversight.
The Office Report dated August 11, 2025, indicated that on August 1, 2025, the Registry was directed to clarify whether the exclusion of these applicants was due to inadvertence on its part. The court examined each interim application individually and passed specific orders for each case.
Court’s Detailed Analysis
The court began its analysis with M.A. No. 1306/2025 in C.A. No. 12069/2024 and M.A. No. 1309/2025 in C.A. No. 12076/2024. In these cases, the issue raised concerned question numbers 15, 62, 65, 67, and 99. The writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court had been dismissed because they were filed after November 21, 2023, which was clearly barred by the court’s order in M.A. No. 276/2024 in SLP(C) No. 25828/2023 dated February 19, 2024.
The court noted: “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.”
This ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to the court’s earlier deadlines and maintaining the finality of judicial orders. The court was firm in its position that candidates who missed the November 21, 2023, cutoff could not benefit from the subsequent re-evaluation order.
Restoration of Rightly Filed Applications
In M.A. No. 1307/2025 in C.A. Nos. 12070-74/2024, the court took a different approach. This application related to I.A. No. 41099/2025, which along with some other interim applications, had been rejected on May 15, 2025, as “totally misconceived.” However, the Office Report confirmed that this interim application was indeed filed and pending as of April 24, 2025.
Given these circumstances, the court restored the interim application and allowed it, permitting the applicants to receive the benefits of the April 24, 2025 order. This decision demonstrated the court’s commitment to ensuring that technical rejections should not deprive candidates of their legitimate rights, especially when they had complied with the necessary deadlines.
Similarly, the Registry pointed out that I.A. No. 48299/2025 and I.A. No. 294693/2024 were filed on February 21, 2025, and December 17, 2024, respectively, and were also pending as of April 24, 2025, when the civil appeals were disposed of. The court allowed these interim applications as well, finding the applicants entitled to the benefit of the April 24, 2025 order.
Applications Rightly Rejected
In M.A. No. 1308/2025 in C.A. No. 12075/2024, the court found that the interim application had been dismissed on May 15, 2025, along with I.A. No. 90445/2025 and another application. The Office Report indicated that as of April 23, 2025, this interim application was defective. Therefore, the court saw no reason to modify the May 15, 2025 order and rejected the miscellaneous application.
This ruling highlighted the importance of ensuring that applications are properly filed and free from defects. The court maintained that applicants must adhere to procedural requirements to avail themselves of judicial remedies.
Grace Marks Claim Dismissed
In M.A. No. 1431 of 2025 in C.A. No. 5503 of 2025, along with I.A. No. 220493/2024 and I.A. No. 295481/2024 in C.A. No. 5503 of 2025, the applicants sought grace marks. These applicants had lost one mark when the answer to Question No. 88 in Booklet ‘F’ was changed, which excluded them from the final merit list published on December 30, 2023.
The court firmly rejected this request, stating: “There cannot be any such grace mark especially, since this Court had determined the correct answer and directed re-evaluation on that basis. The said applications stand dismissed.”
This decision reinforced the principle that once the correct answer is determined through judicial process, and re-evaluation is conducted accordingly, candidates cannot claim grace marks to compensate for their reduced scores. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process based on established correct answers.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s rulings in these miscellaneous applications have significant implications for public service examinations and judicial processes concerning them. The court balanced multiple considerations: the need for finality in litigation, the rights of candidates who approached the court within stipulated deadlines, the consequences of administrative oversights, and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process.
By dismissing applications filed after the November 21, 2023 deadline, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial timelines. This approach aims to prevent endless litigation and provide certainty to the selection process. At the same time, by allowing applications that were pending but not properly considered due to Registry oversight, the court demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that deserving candidates are not deprived of their rights due to administrative errors.
The rejection of grace marks claims establishes an important precedent that re-evaluation based on court-determined correct answers must be implemented strictly, without additional compensatory measures. This maintains the level playing field for all candidates and upholds the principle that examinations should be evaluated based on predetermined correct answers rather than subsequent adjustments to benefit individual candidates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in these miscellaneous applications represents a careful balancing of competing interests in public employment disputes. While ensuring that candidates who legitimately approached the court within deadlines receive their due benefits, the court also maintained the integrity of the examination process and the finality of its own orders.
The rulings send a clear message to all stakeholders—candidates, recruiting agencies, and the judiciary itself—about the importance of adhering to timelines, proper procedures, and the established principles of evaluation. As public employment continues to be a highly competitive arena in India, such judicial clarity helps maintain public confidence in the fairness and integrity of recruitment processes.
The court’s approach also highlights the role of the judiciary in rectifying genuine oversights while preventing the abuse of legal processes. By distinguishing between applications barred by deadlines and those affected by administrative errors, the court has set important guidelines for handling similar cases in the future, ensuring that justice is delivered while maintaining the efficiency and finality of judicial processes.
Petitioner Name: Reetesh Kumar Singh & Ors..Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria.Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Date: 12-08-2025.Result: dismissed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: reetesh-kumar-singh-vs-the-state-of-uttar-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-08-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by K. Vinod Chandran
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Anjaria
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
