SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/469/2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. 1. None present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent-Selecting Body. 4. Petitioner participated in Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Exam, 2012 held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. According to her, she was entitled to more marks in the written examination; however, due to erroneous evaluation of answer script, she was awarded less marks, which has resulted in reduction in her score of marks. 5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:- (i) allow this writ petition of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to carry out the requisite correction in the marks awarded and accordingly, amend to the total tally of the marks of the petitioner obtained in P.C.S. examination for the year 2012, and allocate the Discipline/Cadre in the State Civil Services accordingly. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body refers to Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013 framed by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and submits that Rule 31(7) prohibits re-evaluation of answer script and scrutiny of marks. He further submits that even otherwise also the selection in which petitioner participated was held in 2012 and the representation made by petitioner for re-evaluation of answer script has been rejected by holding that there is no provision for re- evaluation in the applicable Rules. 7. Learned State Counsel contends that the select list cannot be revised at this belated stage on the asking of the petitioner. He further submits that prayer, made by petitioner for correction in the marks, is not supported by any statutory provision. 8. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. In competitive examination held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, every year lakhs of candidates participate, and if every candidate asked for re-evaluation of marks, then it will be very difficult, nay impossible, for the Commission to complete the selection process within given time. Even otherwise also, there is no statutory basis for seeking the relief, as has been claimed in the writ petition. 9. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.04.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB 0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.04.02 05:41:58 -07'00'