HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13323 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking benefit of judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by this Court in WRIT A No. 14066 of 2019 (Amit Kumar Gupta and 11 Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors) with regard to Question nos. 9 & 100 of Test Booklet Series No. 52 applicable to the Question Nos. 37 & 105 of Test Booklet Series No.51. Further prayer for quashing the answer key of Test Booklet Series of U.P. Police 19 June 2018 Shift- 1 examination held on 05.12.2018 for recruitment on the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable P.A.C. has also been sought. 3. Learned State Counsel at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection with regard to entertainability of this petition in view of fact that in said judgment and order dated 10.10.2025, it has been specifically indicated that benefits shall be restricted only to petitioners who have approached this Court. He has also adverted to fact that paragraph-12 indicates that the order shall not affect appointments which have already been made in pursuance of selection which was held in year 2018 for recruitment on the said post Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sajjad Husain, Badar Iftikhar, Kulsoom Firoz Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lalji Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of Constables. He has placed reliance on decisions rendered in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 6519 as well as Punjab Small-Scale Industries and Export Corporation Limited and another v. Jhujhar Singh and another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 668. 4. In response thereto learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid questions are the same which have already been declared by this Court in judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 as being incorrect. It is submitted that when aforesaid questions affect the chances of recruitment on a wide-scale and have been held to be incorrect, benefit of same is required to be given in rem and not in personam. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and others [Civil Appeal No.1943 of 2022] to submit that it is a well-settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to Court. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and others reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is no doubt true that aforesaid questions had been challenged before this Court in WRIT A No. 14066 of 2019 and answer keys with regard to such questions were held to be incorrect due to which the said petition was allowed. However, it is to be borne in mind that the examinations were held in year 2018 with answer keys being issued in year 2019 and selection and appointments in pursuance thereof have already been made. It is also discernible that petitioners of aforesaid writ petition had approached this Court immediately in year 2019 and it is in these circumstances so as not to affect the entire selection that benefit of the order was restricted only to petitioners who had approached the Court. 6. It is quite evident that petitioner of present writ petition has WRIA No. 13323 of 2025 2 approached this Court after almost seven years of answer keys having been notified. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava(supra) has clearly considered the aspect of a fence-sitter to hold that it wold be totally unjust to provide the same benefits to persons who file their petitions with considerable delay as compared to those who have sought intervention of the Court at the first instance. The same analogy has been indicated in Punjab Small- Scale Industries and Export Corporation Limited and another v. Jhujhar Singh (supra). 8. In Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel(supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, the general proposition is obviously applicable in all matters where petitioners approached this Court at the first instance and not after unexplained considerable delay of seven years and that too only once other similarly situated persons have succeeded in their efforts. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is evident that this Court would be bound by directions issued in paragraph-13 of judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 and that petitioner being a fence-sitter would not be eligible for same benefits. 10. Considering aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13323 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench