One extra mark still not enough: Delhi High Court rejects judicial exam candidate’s plea

Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Plea before court

The petitioner had challenged a February 20, 2025 notice issued by the Delhi High Court, through which four questions in the DHJS preliminary examination were deleted on the ground that they were ambiguous and answers to four other questions were revised.

Although the petition originally challenged all eight changes, the petitioner confined his challenge during arguments to the deletion of question number 60. The counsel for the petitioner stated that question number 60 concerned the evidentiary value of a statement under relevant legal provisions. It was further added that the original model answer key had correctly indicated option (2) but the notice treated the question as incorrect/ambiguous and deleted it.

It was stated that despite thousands of candidates appearing in the examination, only eight candidates had objected to the said question and, significantly, none of those objections alleged that the question was vague and therefore said that the subsequent description of the question as ‘ambiguous’ was arbitrary and unsupported by the objections received.

The respondent submitted that the cut-off for qualifying for the mains (written) examination was fixed at 77 marks, whereas the petitioner had scored 75.75 marks. It argued that even if the petitioner’s contention regarding question No. 60 were accepted and one additional mark awarded, his score would rise only to 76.75, still short of the cut-off. Therefore, the respondent said that no effective relief could be granted to the petitioner and he had no cause to pursue the petition. It was further stated that after objections to the answer key, the examination committee undertook a detailed review and thereafter deleted the said question.

It was submitted that the examination committee, being an expert administrative body, was vested with the requisite discretion to revise or delete questions found to be ambiguous and that the petitioner had failed to establish any arbitrariness, procedural irregularity or mala fides in the decision-making process.

The petitioner had alternatively sought a one-time age relaxation to enable him to appear in the next DHJS examination, as he would otherwise cross the maximum permissible age limit.

Court rejects challenge

The court noted that the challenge raised by the petitioner was always ‘academic qua the petitioner’s result, as any interference would not come to the aid of the petitioner, as it would not have qualified for the mains exam.’

The court also rejected the petitioner’s request seeking one-time age relaxation, observing that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any legal basis for granting such relaxation. “The petitioner has failed to show any legal basis for such a relief. We therefore reject this oral prayer made by the petitioner,” the court said.

Clarifying that it had not examined the contentions of the parties regarding the correctness or otherwise of question number 60, the court dismissed the petition.