HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14903 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr. K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the final result/selection list dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure-8) in respect of TGT Exam- Girls Category - Art, insofar as the petitioner has been excluded from selection despite having secured the prescribed cut-off marks of 476 marks and without consideration of her objection dated 08.07.2026 against Question No. 39; (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent-Commission to consider and decide the petitioner's objection against Question No. 39 and thereafter re-evaluate/revise her result in accordance with law; (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for TGT-Art, Girls Category, after taking a lawful decision upon Question No. 39 and, if she is found entitled to selection, include her name in the selection list and proceed with her appointment in accordance with law; (iv) pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including award of costs in favour of the petitioner." 3. On 24th September, 2026, the following order was passed: Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi Anjali Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) "1. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he has obtained the cut-off marks of 476 in respect of the T.G.T. Examination--Girls Category--Art; but still his name has not found place in the select list. 2. Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission, seeks time to take instructions. 3. List this case on 05.10.2026 as fresh." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid, Mr. K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 has passed on instructions in the Court today, which are kept on record and on the basis of the aforesaid he submits that the petitioner has also obtained 476 marks, however, age wise she is younger to the last selected candidate, therefore, the relief as prayed cannot be granted to her. He further submits that the issue regarding 'marks being same, age has to be considered', has already been decided by this Court in Writ-A No.11779 of 2026 (Anju Singh vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) as decided on 05.08.2026. He also contends that so far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Question No.39, with respect to the same question, Writ-A No.12979 of 2026 (Vimal Kumar Gautam vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. In view of the above submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nothing remains in the writ petition. 7. The present writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. October 5, 2026 K.N. WRIA No. 14903 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad