HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14227 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned result declaration dated 26.08.2026 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) issued by Respondent No. 2 so far as Sanskrit Subject is concerned; ii. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing Respondents to Declare Question No. 41 as out of syllabus, Question No. 61 as incorrect being wrongly framed, and Option C of Question No. 96 is correct so far as Sanskrit Subject is concerned and declare the result accordingly; iii. issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. iv. Award the cost of the Petition in favour of petitioner." 3. At the outset, Shri K. Shahi, Advocate has placed before this Court an order dated 02.09.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 13729 of 2026 (Sandhya Yadav Vs. U.P. Education Service Selection Commission and Another). For ready reference, the same is reproduced below: Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditi Pandey, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi Sanju Yadav .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And Another .....Respondent(s) "1. Report dated 24.08.2026 and the notification dated 26.08.2026 are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ram Kesh, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri Tanak Sahi, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.Sahi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- Commission submits that the expert committee has revised the result and issued a notification on 26.08.026; by way of which one question No.61 has been found to be outside syllabus, whereas question Nos.96 and 41 were found to be correct. He has further placed before this Court an order dated 24.08.2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in Writ A No.7693 of 2026 ( Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), by way of which this Court while ascertaining the challenge to question nos. 96 in the examination, for appointment to the post of T.G.T, has dismissed the writ petition on 24.08.2026. 4. Be that as it may be, now since the experts have also submitted a report finding the question No.96 to be correct. No further relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is consigned to record. " 4. In view of the aforesaid report submitted by the experts, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is consigned to record. September 30, 2026 Sumit K. WRIA No. 14227 of 2026 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad