The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday flagged serious concerns about errors flagged each year in question papers of exams conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) including judicial service exams.

A Bench of Justices Ravindra Maithani and Alok Mahra made the observation while ordering the publication of a revised merit list for the preliminary round of the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination held in August this year, after making changes to the answers of two questions and deleting two questions.

Two separate rulings to this effect were passed on separate pleas filed by two judicial aspirants, Suryansh Tiwari and Shashank Pant, who flagged errors in the answer key published for the preliminary rounds of the judicial exam held in August this year.

The Court lamented that this was not the first time that exam takers were forced to initiate litigation to correct such errors.

"These errors in the question paper have crept in almost all the examination which are being conducted by the UKPSC," the Court said.

The Court highlighted that it is the candidates who bear the brunt of the commission’s errors.

“The students prepare for the examination by fixing a schedule, but due to ambiguous questions the students suffer. One can understand that confidence of the candidate is shaken when an erroneous or wrong answer is asked in a competitive exam, which is subsequently deleted, or when a wrong answer is given in the final answer key. In such circumstances, the legitimate expectations of the candidates get shattered. The sudden change in merit can cause prejudice, in which case Court interference becomes necessary ... Candidates who have dedicated months or years preparing for the exams feel frustrated and let down by a system that was meant to impartially assess their knowledge and efforts," it added.

Faulty questions add to the pressure already being faced by exam takers, the Court went on to remark.

It affects their confidence and their performance in exams that they may have spent years preparing for, the Bench opined.

“Such errors can create a widespread sense of distrust and disappointment among students. The emotional and psychological impact of encountering faulty questions is significant. Candidates pour their emotional energy into preparation, and facing unfair or confusing questions during the exam can lead to feeling of anxiety, helplessness and anger … Candidates, who are at the threshold of their career, this uncertainty adds extra pressure and concern about their future prospects," the ruling said.

The Court, therefore, issued a series of detailed directions to ensure that question paper errors are minimised and so that any such error is promptly spotted and corrected.

These measures include the creation of an expert committee to re-check disputed questions, preparation of reasoned reports to clearly indicate what errors have been flagged and corrected, the uniform re-evaluation of answer papers and the prompt publication of revised merit lists, where required.

Corrections to judicial exam held on August 31, 2025

The prelim exam results of the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination were published on October 31.

However, the petitioners before the Court contended that there were errors in some answers. Two of such questions flagged were common but numbered differently depending on the question booklet set allotted to them.

The Court held that the answers published by UKPSC for two of the questions flagged before it were incorrect and should be revised.

One such question concerned waqf law and was flagged by Tiwari, who had been allotted a Set A series question paper.

During court hearings, the commission said that it found force in concerns raised by objectors that the answer ought to have been option (b).

However, Tiwari contended that the correct option was actually option (d).

He explained that the commission had failed to consider the changed legal position with the introduction of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, which had not been stayed when the exam was conducted on August 31, 2025.

The Court agreed with the petitioner and ruled that the correction option was (d).

Another question flagged by both petitioners (numbered differently in Set A and Set C) dealt with whether a particular act amounted to criminal trespass, house trespass, housebreaking or all of these offences.

The petitioners argued that the act described in the question tallied with the specific definition of "housebreaking" under the Indian criminal law. They questioned how the commission concluded that it could be all of the above or option (d).

The Court agreed with the petitioners and held that the correct option is option (c), namely housebreaking.

It further held that two questions should have been deleted by the commission.

One such question flagged by Tiwari was found to have two correct answers. This question instructed exam takers to choose a case law that dealt with the admissibility of electronic evidence.

During a hearing, the Secretary of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Ashok Kumar Pandey, conceded that there were two correct answers. The Court opined that this was a ground for deleting the question altogether, to avoid any confusion.

Another question flagged by Pant, who got allotted a Set C question paper, was found to have been incorrectly phrased.

This question concerned the ingredients to establish the offence of abetment of suicide, although the phrase "abetment" appeared to have been inadvertently spelt as "abatement" in the paper.

During court proceedings, the commission conceded that this question was defectively phrased and ought to have been deleted.

Accordingly, the Court ordered its deletion.

The Court proceeded to direct the commission to publish a revised merit list after incorporating these four changes (corrections to two answers and deletion of two questions).

The Court found no reasons to interfere with the remaining objections by the petitioners.

One of the petitioners, Suryansh Tiwari was represented by advocate Abhijay Negi.

The other petitioner, Shashank Pant, was represented by advocate Vinay Kumar.

Deputy Advocate General KN Joshi appeared for the State of Uttarakhand.

Advocates BD Kandpal and Pankaj Miglani represented the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

[Read Orders]