Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15413 (ALL)

SMT SANGITA RANI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/16568/2026 · 2026-10-06

Vinod Diwakar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 16568 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned result status showing 'Rejected' in respect of the petitioner for UPTET-2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the UPTET-2026, Upper Primary Level (Paper-II) examination conducted by the respondent authorities on 03.07.2026 at R.N. Inter College, Moradabad. Upon declaration of the result, the petitioner's result was shown as "Rejected" on the ground that the roll number mentioned on the OMR answer sheet was invalid. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner had duly completed all the requisite formalities at the examination centre and had appeared in the examination in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, while filling up the OMR answer sheet, owing to inadvertence and examination-related stress, the petitioner omitted the initial leading zero of her roll number. The petitioner's correct roll number is 0521304051, whereas the roll number reflected in the OMR record is 521304051, the only discrepancy being the omission of the initial zero. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid discrepancy is purely inadvertent and clerical in nature and does not alter the identity of the petitioner or create any ambiguity regarding her candidature. The petitioner had otherwise duly participated in the examination and fulfilled all the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt Sangita Rani .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) prescribed requirements. Immediately upon declaration of the result, the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated 27.08.2026 and 31.08.2026 before the respondent Commission, along with the relevant supporting documents, requesting verification of the OMR record and correction of the result. However, no decision has been taken on the said representations till date. 6. It is, therefore, submitted that rejection of the petitioner's result solely on account of omission of the initial leading zero in the roll number, despite the petitioner's identity being otherwise verifiable from the examination record, is arbitrary and disproportionate. Accordingly, the impugned result, insofar as it declares the petitioner's UPTET-2026 result as "Rejected", deserves to be set aside, with a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to verify the petitioner's candidature and OMR record and declare her result in accordance with law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner's result was rightly rejected as she did not correctly mention her allotted roll number on the OMR answer sheet. The omission of the leading zero, even if inadvertent, amounts to non-compliance with the examination instructions. It is submitted that no error or irregularity has been committed by the respondents and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner admittedly mentioned 521304051 instead of her allotted roll number 0521304051 on the OMR answer sheet. The plea that the omission of the leading zero was inadvertent cannot, by itself, justify deviation from the prescribed examination procedure. The particulars recorded on the OMR answer sheet are required to be correctly filled in accordance with the examination instructions, and the Court cannot direct relaxation of such mandatory requirements merely on the ground of an inadvertent mistake, particularly when no arbitrariness, mala fide or violation of the prescribed procedure on the part of the respondents has been demonstrated. Accordingly, no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 7, 2026 A. Tripathi WRIA No. 16568 of 2026 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad