2026:UHC:3849 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 3 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Dalakoti, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ravindra S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 4. Petitioner participated in Combined State (Civil) Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 2021, however, she was declared unsuccessful. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged rejection of her representation, vide order dated 17.04.2025, passed by Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. She has also sought a direction to the selecting body to revaluate the answer-script of petitioner for the mains examination. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the selecting body refers to Rule 31(7) of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013, which reads as under: - “(7) There shall be no provision for revaluation or re-scrutiny of the Answer Books of the Examinations conducted by the Commission.” 6. Based on Rule 31(7), it is contended on behalf of the selecting body that it is not possible for the 2026:UHC:3849 Commission to revaluate the answer- script of candidates who are not satisfied with their score of marks in any selection process, as it will make the selection process an unending exercise. He further submits that every selecting body is required to complete the selection process in a term bound manner; therefore, a provision has been made in sub-rule (7) of Rule 31, which forbids revaluation. Thus, he submits that the writ petition is misconceived. 7. This Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of selecting body. In the absence of any enabling provision in the Rules, there cannot be a direction to the selecting body to revaluate the answer-script of the petitioner. Thus, the rejection of petitioner’s representation cannot be faulted. For the same reason, no mandamus can be issued to the selecting body to revaluate petitioner’s answer- script. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 8. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 19.05.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e 4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D0 95C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.05.20 10:05:21 +05'30'