HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10036 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Neetu Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Shashank Bhasin, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- National Testing Agency and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the National Testing Agency to reevaluate the answers of the petitioner given in the Joint CSIR-UGC NET (National Eligibility Test) June, 2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several of the questions asked in the test are incorrect as those had plural correct options even as per the final answer key published by the National Testing Agency. 4. It was a computer based examination and the result was published on 20.08.2025. The petitioner submitted a representation on 24.09.2025 stating that he did not know the answer of any question in any of the three parts-Part A, Part B and Part C. Part C consisted of total 60 questions out of which twenty were to be attempted and there was no negative marking. The petitioner had encircled all the options A, B, C and D in first twenty questions in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ramesh Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Part C. 5. It is ironical that the petitioner is aspiring to clear CSIR-UGC NET examination through which he would become an Assistant Professor and in turn a Professor in some college or university whereas he himself has written in his representation that the question paper consisted of three parts i.e. Parts A, B and C and he did not know the answer to any single question of any part. Since questions contained in parts A and B contained negative marking the petitioner did not attempt any single question in Parts A and B and has attempted the questions falling in Part C in a strange manner-by encircling all options of the questions contained in Part C, which speaks volumes about the capability of the petitioner. It is really very sad that such candidates are aspiring to become Assistant Professors and Professors in degree colleges and universities and such a petitioner has come forward to assert his constitutional rights to claim admission to PhD course by claiming reevaluation of his answer sheet. 6. The averments made by the petitioner himself in his representation indicate his competence regarding taking admission in PhD and becoming Lecturer- Professor in degree college/university. Further, the learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that there is no provision for reevaluation of answers in the aforesaid examination. 7. As the petitioner has no legal right to seek reevaluation of answers the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. October 16, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 10036 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench