Court rules that questions admitting two correct answers in qualifying exam must be excluded from evaluation; benefits to extend equally to all candidates, not just those who marked accepted options.
In a significant judgment delivered on 28th October 2026, the Allahabad High Court addressed a crucial issue concerning the evaluation process of the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test (UPTET) 2026. The case, Vijay Sonkar and Others v. State of U.P., challenged the evaluation methodology adopted by the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission (UPESSC) in respect of two questions in the UPTET question paper which the Commission itself found to admit two correct answers, contrary to the exam's scheme requiring only one correct option per question.
The petitioners, four candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes category and appearing in the UPTET-2026 examination, were declared not qualified after the final results were declared. Their grievance arose because Question Nos. 36 and 37 of the Master Set were marked with two correct options each in the final answer key, but the Commission awarded marks only to candidates who selected either of the accepted options, excluding those who selected other options. The petitioners contended this was unfair and discriminatory.
After hearing the parties, the Court referred to settled principles of judicial review in examination matters and relied heavily on precedents including the Supreme Court's rulings in Ashok Yadav v. UPSSSC, Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., and the earlier Allahabad High Court decision in Smt. Shimla Singh v. State of U.P. The Court noted that UPTET is a qualifying examination and does not involve inter-se competition among candidates. Therefore, fairness demands that questions admitting multiple correct answers should be treated as defective.
The Court held that once the examining authority accepts two options as correct for a question requiring a single answer, the question loses its evaluative purpose. Consequently, such questions must be excluded from evaluation entirely rather than awarding marks only to candidates who happened to choose one of the accepted options. Exclusion ensures uniform treatment of all candidates and avoids arbitrariness.
Importantly, the Court underscored that this approach is consistent with the principle that the entire question paper must be treated as containing fewer questions (148 instead of 150), and the qualifying marks recalculated accordingly. The respondents were directed to recompute the petitioners' scores in conformity with this principle and issue corrected results and scorecards. However, the Court clarified that this correction of result does not confer any automatic right to appointment or selection but only corrects eligibility status.
The judgment also emphasized the Court's power to mold relief beyond the exact prayer in the petition to do complete justice, especially where pleadings raise the issue of defective questions. It rejected the argument that failure to object to the provisional key bars relief once the final key acknowledges the error.
This ruling reaffirms judicial vigilance in ensuring fairness and transparency in competitive and qualifying examinations. It mandates that examination authorities adopt evaluation methods which avoid penalizing candidates due to the authority's own errors in question setting or keying.
Bottom Line:
UPTET being a qualifying examination, where the examining authority itself accepts two options as correct in a single-answer multiple-choice question, such defective questions are liable to be excluded from evaluation; benefit cannot be confined only to candidates who marked either of the accepted options, and consequential benefit must extend uniformly to all similarly situated candidates.
Statutory provision(s):
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (relevant guidelines for TET), Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test regulations and guidelines (implied), judicial principles under writ jurisdiction as per Constitution of India.
Vijay Sonkar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3006397
