Dehradun, Dec. 20 -- The state high court has directed the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) to recompute the results of the judicial services civil judge (junior division) preliminary examination, 2023, after finding error in the evaluation of a question and ambiguity in another. The high court held that the answer provided by the commission for Question 120, relating to the essential conditions of a valid waqf under Muslim law, was incorrect. The bench noted that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into force before the examination, made it mandatory that a waqf be created by a Muslim, be perpetual in nature and be for religious, pious or charitable purposes. In view of this statutory position, the correct answer was option (d)- "All of the above". A division bench of justice Ravindra Maithani and justice Alok Mahra passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Suryansh Tiwari, who had challenged the final result declared by the commission on October 31, 2025. The petitioner had missed the cut-off for the mains examination by a narrow margin and alleged that incorrect answers in the official key and wrongful deletion of a question had cost him crucial marks. The order was reserved on December 9 and delivered on December 18. Abhijay Negi, counsel of the petitioner said Tiwari had appeared in the preliminary examination pursuant to an advertisement issued by the UKPSC on May 16, 2025. He was allotted Question Booklet Series "A" and raised objections to the evaluation of Questions 120, 132, 145 and 158, and to the deletion of Question 129. While the provisional answer key was published on September 4, 2025, a revised key was issued on September 30, followed by the declaration of results a month later. As per the results, the cut-off for the open category was 162.12 marks, while the petitioner secured 161.11 marks, rendering him ineligible for the mains examination scheduled to begin on January 19, 2026. On Question 145, which dealt with an offence committed by making a hole through a wall to enter a house, the high court disagreed with the commission's answer. Relying on the illustration appended to Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code, the bench held that the act squarely amounted to "house-breaking", making option (c) the correct answer. The court also examined Question 158, which asked about cases dealing with the admissibility of electronic evidence. It noted that both "Anvar PV vs PK Basheer" and "AP Khotkar vs KK Gorantyal" cases addressed the issue, rendering the question ambiguous. The counsel for the commission conceded during the hearing that there were two correct answers. The bench held that such a question ought to have been deleted during evaluation and directed that it be excluded. However, the court upheld the commission's stand on Question 132, relating to dissolution of marriage under Muslim law, holding that the answer provided by UKPSC was correct and did not warrant interference. It also agreed with the deletion of Question 129, related to marriage under Muslim Law contracted without witness, stating that the question did not specify whether it related to Sunni or Shia law, justifying its removal from evaluation. The high court consequently directed the UKPSC to re-evaluate the preliminary examination by deleting Question 158, treating option (c) as correct for Question 145 and option (d) as correct for Question 120, and to publish a revised merit list in accordance with the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, 2022....