Case at a Glance
In the primary-level UPTET-2026, the final answer key accepted two options as correct for Questions 36 and 37, after the provisional key had shown one. Four candidates who chose neither accepted option missed the qualifying mark of 82 by fractions. The Allahabad High Court held that a single-answer question ceases to serve any evaluative purpose once the examining body accepts two answers, directed that both questions be excluded, the paper treated as having 148 questions and qualifying marks recalculated, and extended the benefit to all similarly placed candidates.
The U.P. Education Service Selection Commission advertised UPTET-2026 on 20 March 2026, and the primary-level exam of 150 questions was held on 3 July 2026 in shifts, with normalisation of scores. The provisional key showed option (D) for Questions 36 and 37. After objections, the final key accepted both (B) and (D) for Question 36 and both (A) and (D) for Question 37. Candidates who marked either accepted option got the mark; others got nothing. The Commission dropped Question 38 from the same paper.
The result of 26 August 2026 showed the four petitioners, all OBC candidates holding or pursuing BTC/D.El.Ed., as not qualified, with normalised scores between about 80.40 and 81.40 against a qualifying minimum of 82. They relied on Smt. Shimla Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 12 AHC CK 0096, a 2018 decision on UPTET that had attained finality. The Commission argued that they had not objected to the provisional key and that the method of marking was fair.
The Key Question Before the Court
When an examining body accepts two options as correct in a multiple-choice question meant to have one answer, how should the question be evaluated?
Exclusion Treats Every Candidate Alike
The Court noted that the grievance arose from the Commission’s own acceptance of two options, not from a challenge to the key on merits. It reviewed the principles in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2017) 12 SC CK 0001, Rishal and Ashok Yadav, recognising deference to examining bodies on academic matters. It held that Shimla Singh still applied, since the Supreme Court had on 5 August 2026 set aside the Division Bench direction in Sunil Kumar Singh that had been relied on against it.
A question requiring a single answer “ceases to serve any evaluative purpose once the examining authority itself accepts two of those options as correct.” Citing Ran Vijay Singh, which describes exclusion as “one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question”, the Court preferred exclusion because it “treats every candidate alike: it neither rewards nor penalizes the choice made”. The Commission had itself excluded Question 38. Following Rishal, the paper is to be treated as containing 148 questions. Relying on Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court moulded the relief from the pleadings, and distinguished decisions on late objections as arising in competitive selections.
What the Court Actually Held
- Questions 36 and 37 of the Master Set are to be excluded from evaluation, consistent with the binding precedent discussed.
- The paper is treated as having 148 questions and the qualifying standard is to be recalculated at the prescribed percentages.
- The benefit extends uniformly to all similarly situated candidates, and the petitioners’ scores, results and scorecards must be recomputed.
- The corrected result does not by itself confer any right to appointment or selection in any later recruitment.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It sets a clear method for MCQs where the answer key accepts more than one option.
- It benefits all similarly placed UPTET-2026 candidates, not only the petitioners.
- It confirms that failure to object to a provisional key does not bar relief where the defect appears only in the final key.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- If the final key accepts two answers to a single-answer question, exclusion of that question may be sought.
- A recomputed TET result is a qualification, not a job; appointment depends on separate recruitment.
For Counsel
- Rely on Shimla Singh, Ran Vijay Singh and Rishal for exclusion and recalculation of the qualifying standard.
- Point out that the defect surfaced only in the final key when facing a ‘no objection filed’ defence.
Key Takeaways
- Two UPTET-2026 questions are to be excluded from evaluation.
- The paper counts as 148 questions and the cut-off is recalculated.
- All similarly situated candidates get the benefit.
- Qualification does not guarantee appointment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which UPTET questions were affected?
Questions 36 and 37 of the Master Set of the primary-level UPTET-2026 held on 3 July 2026, for which the final key accepted two options each.
Will all candidates benefit?
Yes. The Court directed that the benefit be extended uniformly to all similarly situated candidates, not only the petitioners.
Does passing after recomputation guarantee a teaching job?
No. The Court said the corrected result does not by itself confer any right to appointment in any later recruitment.
Conclusion
The Commission’s decision to accept two answers made the two questions unfit to measure anything. Excluding them, as it had already done for a third question, places all candidates on the same footing.
Practical takeaway: Candidates affected by multi-answer questions in UPTET-2026 should check their recomputed scores; in future exams, challenges to final keys can rely on this exclusion method.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com