Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge to DJS Mains 2023 Evaluation: “Judicial Review Not a Substitute for Re-Evaluation; Answer-Key and Shortlisting Process Cannot Be Interfered With Unless Palpably Incorrect”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the evaluation of the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS) Mains Examination 2023 and the shortlisting process for the viva-voce stage. The petitioner had argued that two of his answers were wrongly marked incorrect and that the shortlisting ratio violated the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970.

The court, however, held that:

1. There was no demonstrable error in the answer-key, and judicial review could not be used to re-evaluate answers based on alternative legal interpretations.
2. The Examination Committee had properly considered the petitioner’s representation and found no merit in revising the answer-key.
3. The shortlisting process did not violate statutory rules, as the changes in the number of candidates were made due to prior judicial interventions.

The court reiterated that judicial interference in examination matters is limited to cases where the answer-key is palpably incorrect and that the petitioner’s claim did not meet this threshold.

Facts of the Case

1. Examination Notification and Preliminary Exam
   • The Delhi High Court, through an advertisement dated November 6, 2023, invited applications for recruitment to the Delhi Judicial Services.
   • A total of 53 vacancies were advertised.
   • The petitioner successfully cleared the preliminary examination and was eligible to appear for the Mains examination.
   • Initially, 502 candidates were shortlisted for the Mains, but this number was later revised to 698 following certain court orders.
2. Mains Examination and Result Declaration
   • The Mains examination was conducted on April 13 and 14, 2024.
   • The results were declared on January 7, 2025, and 153 candidates were shortlisted for viva-voce.
   • The petitioner was not included in the shortlist.
3. Petitioner’s RTI Application and Grievance
   • The petitioner filed an RTI application on January 10, 2025, seeking his answer sheets.
   • Upon receiving them, he noticed that two of his answers (for Question 11(iv) and 11(vii)) were marked incorrect, leading to a zero-score penalty.
   • He argued that his answers were legally correct and that he had been unfairly evaluated.
4. Legal Challenge
   • The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, seeking the following reliefs:
     1. Revision of the result to include marks for his disputed answers.
     2. Shortlisting of additional candidates for viva-voce, aligning with the ratio prescribed under the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
     3. Deletion of ambiguous or debatable questions from the examination.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the answer-key used in the Mains examination was incorrect, justifying judicial intervention?
2. Whether the shortlisting process for viva-voce violated the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970?
3. Whether the inclusion of objective-type questions in a subjective examination was legally permissible?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Errors in Answer-Key
   • The petitioner argued that Question 11(iv) and Question 11(vii) were incorrectly marked as wrong.
   • Question 11(iv):
     • The question asked whether an agreement where both parties are under a mistake of fact is voidable at the option of either party.
     • The petitioner answered false, arguing that such an agreement is void, not voidable, under Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
   • Question 11(vii):
     • The question stated that an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a court not subordinate to the court granting the injunction.
     • The petitioner answered true, arguing that courts do grant anti-suit injunctions against foreign courts, even though they are not technically subordinate.
2. Violation of Shortlisting Rules
   • The petitioner argued that Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, required candidates to be shortlisted for viva-voce at 4.8 times the number of vacancies.
   • However, only three times the number of vacancies were called, restricting competition unfairly.
3. Improper Use of Objective-Type Questions
   • The Mains examination was meant to be subjective, but objective-type questions were included.
   • The petitioner contended that this format prevented candidates from demonstrating their legal reasoning skills.
4. Judicial Precedents Supporting Re-Evaluation
   • The petitioner cited:
     • Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University (2005) – where the Supreme Court permitted re-evaluation.
     • Pallav Mongia v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court (2012) – where errors in an examination process were corrected through judicial intervention.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Decision of the Examination Committee is Final
   • The Examination Committee, after reviewing the petitioner’s representation and consulting the examiner, rejected his objections.
2. Limited Scope of Judicial Review
   • The respondent relied on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018), where the Supreme Court held:
     • Judicial interference in examination results is allowed only in rare and exceptional cases.
     • Courts must presume the correctness of an answer-key unless a blatant error is demonstrated.
   • Other supporting cases included:
     • Kishore Kumar v. High Court of Delhi (2018)
     • Aadya Antya v. High Court of Delhi (2023)
     • Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court (2022)
3. Shortlisting Process Was Proper
   • The ratio of candidates shortlisted was affected by previous judicial orders and was within administrative discretion.
4. Objective Questions Were Permissible
   • There was no legal restriction on including objective-type questions in the Mains examination.

Court’s Analysis

1. No Demonstrable Error in Answer-Key
   • The court held that the petitioner had not established that his answers were “palpably incorrect” as required by Ran Vijay Singh.
   • The Examination Committee’s decision to uphold the answer-key was final.
2. Judicial Review in Examination Matters is Limited
   • Courts cannot assume the role of an examination authority and re-evaluate answers based on competing legal interpretations.
   • The onus is on the candidate to prove that an answer is “demonstrably incorrect without any inferential process of reasoning.”
3. Shortlisting Ratio Was Reasonable
   • The Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, allow flexibility in shortlisting candidates.
   • The number of candidates allowed for the Mains examination was increased due to prior judicial orders, justifying the final ratio for viva-voce.
4. Objective Questions Were Legally Valid
   • The court found no prohibition on including objective-type questions in the examination.

Conclusion

• The court dismissed the petition, holding that:
  1. The petitioner had failed to demonstrate a clear error in the answer-key.
  2. The shortlisting process was legally valid.
  3. There was no rule prohibiting objective-type questions in the Mains examination.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Reaffirms Limited Judicial Review in Examinations – Courts will not interfere in academic matters unless a manifest error is demonstrated.
2. Preserves the Authority of Examination Committees – The decision strengthens the role of examination bodies in conducting and evaluating competitive exams.
3. Discourages Post-Examination Challenges – The judgment discourages candidates from challenging examination processes after results are declared unless a clear legal violation exists.

This ruling sets a strong precedent in upholding the integrity and finality of competitive examination results.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Permits Student’s Participation in State Kalolsavam for ‘Ottanthullal,’ Citing Acknowledged Merit—”Recognized Talent Cannot Be Overlooked Due to Technicalities”