Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gunjana Yadav vs State Of U.P. Through Additional ... on 24 March, 2026
1
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No. 559/2025 in SLP(C) No. 4210/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2025
in SLP(C) No.4210/2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India]
GUNJANA YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY BASIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
LUCKNOW & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 54556/2026 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
Date : 24-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Kr. Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition being Writ-C No.9446/2024 by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 11.11.2024, the petitioner was before this Court in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified petitioner/applicant and learned counsel for the first Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.01 17:21:17 IST Reason: respondent-State. We have perused the material on record.
2
3. The main contention of petitioner’s counsel was that once the mathematics’ examination which was to take place on 06.11.2020 was cancelled, there was no personal intimation given to the petitioner about the fresh date for holding the said examination; that a newspaper publication seems to have been made indicating that the cancelled exam was to be held on 25.11.2020. The petitioner was not aware of the newspaper publication as she resides in a rural area of District Azamgarh. Consequently, she did not appear in the examination on 25.11.2020. Blissfully ignorant of the date of examination which had already passed, she made a representation with regard to the date on which the examination was to be held and thereafter filed the writ petition before the High Court. On 09.11.2022, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as the said representation was made belatedly.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was no personal intimation of the fresh date on which the mathematics’ examination was to be held, it was not expected of the petitioner to inquire every day as to when the examination was to be held as such. In the circumstances, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before this Court which was disposed. Thereafter an interim order dated 01.04.2025 passed in M.A.No.559/2025, the petitioner was permitted to appear 3 in the mathematics examination and she did appear. However, since the said interim order was subject to the final result of this matter, the respondent has not evaluated her answer paper. Hence, the application has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondent to evaluate her answer paper.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since this Court by an interim order permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination and virtually the grievance of the petitioner has been assuaged this Interlocutory Application may be disposed of by directing the respondent to evaluate her answer sheet and allowing this Miscellaneous application.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent however drew our attention to the orders dated 04.03.2025 and 01.04.2025 and submitted that the said orders were subject to the final result to be arrived at in this case. Hence, pending the final result, the respondent has not yet evaluated the answer sheet of the petitioner herein. He also submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, appropriate orders may be made.
7. We have taken note of the orders dated 04.03.2025 and 01.04.2025 passed in the Special Leave Petition as well as in Miscellaneous No. 559/2025. For immediate reference, we extract the said orders as under: 4
Order dated 04.03.2025:
“Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the time-table for the Mathematics paper has not yet been issued.
In the circumstances, liberty is reserved to the petitioner herein to move the matter once the time- table is issued.
The Special Leave Petition is hence disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” Order dated 01.04.2025:
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State and other authorities.
Subject to the result of this Special Leave Petition, the petitioner is permitted to appear in the ensuing examination which is to be conducted on 04.04.2025 in Mathematics. The respondent-authorities shall ensure that the hall-ticket or admission card is made available to her in advance so that she can appear in the said examination.
It is needless to observe that this interim order is subject to the final order to be made in this case.”
8. On perusal of the same, we find that initially there was no time-table for the mathematics’ paper which had been issued. Hence, we disposed of the Special Leave Petition and thereafter in Miscellaneous Application No.559/2025 by order dated 01.04.2025, we permitted the petitioner to appear in the mathematics’ examination which was conducted on 04.04.2025. Now this Interlocutory Application No.54556/2026 has been filed in M.A.No. 559/2025 for seeking a direction for evaluation the answer sheet in the mathematics examination of the petitioner. We find that since this Court permitted the petitioner herein to appear in the said examination then consequentially a further 5 direction is required to be issued and is issued to the respondent to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner in the mathematics examination and declare the result.
Hence, we direct that the said exercise shall be carried out within a period of three weeks from today.
9. On evaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner, the result shall be communicated to the petitioner herein.
10. The Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, disposed of and the Miscellaneous Application too stands disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)