Delhi High Court Rejects DHJS Candidate’s Age Relaxation Plea; Holds Deleted Question Challenge Academic as Extra Mark Still Fell Below Mains Cut-Off
Delhi High Court Refuses Age Relaxation for Next DHJS Examination; Finds Candidate Would Not Qualify Even if Deleted Question Was Restored
Facts
The petitioner, Neeraj Bhardwaj, participated in the selection process for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) pursuant to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2024. He challenged the Delhi High Court’s Notice dated 20 February 2025 deleting four questions—Questions 6, 22, 60 and 101 of Booklet Series ‘C’—as ambiguous and revising the answers to four other questions. During arguments, however, he confined his challenge exclusively to the deletion of Question No. 60.
The recruitment process concerned 16 DHJS vacancies, comprising 14 existing and two anticipated vacancies, through Preliminary Examination, Mains Written Examination and Viva Voce. The Preliminary Examination was conducted on 2 February 2025.
After objections were invited to the Model Answer Keys, the Examination Committee deleted four questions and revised four answers. Consequently, the maximum marks were reduced from 150 to 146 and the minimum qualifying marks for General Category candidates became 73.
Question No. 60 concerned the nature and evidentiary use of a statement under Section 174 CrPC. The original Model Answer Key identified Option (2) as correct, but the question was subsequently deleted as ambiguous.
The petitioner scored 75.75 marks. The cut-off for qualifying for the Mains Examination was 77 marks. Even if the petitioner succeeded regarding Question No. 60 and received the additional one mark, his score would rise only to 76.75, still below the cut-off.
The petition had been filed on 12 March 2025. Interim relief was denied on 21 March 2025, and by the time of final hearing, the DHJSE-2024 selection process had been completed and appointments made. The petitioner therefore sought a limited alternative relief of one-time age relaxation to appear in the next DHJS examination, since he had crossed the prescribed maximum age.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the deletion of Question No. 60 concerning Section 174 CrPC required judicial examination when restoration of one mark would still leave the petitioner below the Mains cut-off.
- Whether the challenge had become merely academic because no consequential relief concerning DHJSE-2024 could accrue to the petitioner.
- Whether the Court should adjudicate the correctness of Question No. 60 after completion of the entire selection and appointment process.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to a one-time age relaxation permitting him to participate in the next DHJS examination.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s interim relief granted to another judicial service candidate provided a legal basis for granting such age relaxation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that Question No. 60 concerned the evidentiary value of a statement under Section 174 CrPC and that the original Model Answer Key had correctly identified Option (2): such a statement could be used as a previous statement to corroborate or contradict its maker at trial.
He relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka, contending that the law regarding the evidentiary use of such a statement was settled and, therefore, there was no basis for treating the question as incorrect or ambiguous.
The petitioner further argued that:
- only eight candidates had objected to Question No. 60 despite thousands appearing in the examination;
- none of those objections alleged that the question was vague;
- there was no disclosed expert opinion supporting its deletion; and
- an erroneous answer-key determination affecting a competitive examination is open to judicial scrutiny.
He relied upon Secretary (Health) v. Dr. Anita Puri, Om Prakash Verma v. National Testing Agency, Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, and Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission to contend that courts may interfere where an answer key or examination decision is demonstrably incorrect.
Since the selection had already concluded, the petitioner ultimately sought one-time age relaxation for the next DHJS examination.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Delhi High Court administration argued that the DHJSE-2024 selection process had already concluded and appointments had been made, rendering the petition infructuous in practical terms.
It submitted that the Examination Committee had undertaken a detailed review after considering objections and relevant material. In exercise of its expert administrative discretion, it deleted Questions 6, 22, 60 and 101 and revised the answers to Questions 77, 82, 102 and 113.
Regarding Question No. 60, the respondent maintained that Section 174 CrPC does not itself contemplate recording a “statement” but concerns preparation of an inquest report regarding the apparent cause of death. Statements are ordinarily recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The wording of Question No. 60 was therefore considered confusing and ambiguous.
The respondent further pointed out that the petitioner had actually benefited from the same revised Notice in relation to Questions 77 and 82, receiving 1.25 marks for each.
It relied upon Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, and Kushagra Mittal Minor v. National Testing Agency to emphasise judicial restraint in examination matters, particularly where expert bodies have taken the relevant decision.
Analysis of the Law
1. A challenge producing no consequential benefit need not be adjudicated
The decisive fact was mathematical and undisputed.
The petitioner scored 75.75 marks, while the cut-off was 77 marks.
Even if Question No. 60 were restored and the petitioner awarded the additional one mark claimed by him, his score would become 76.75 marks.
He would therefore still not qualify for the Mains Examination.
The Court consequently held that the challenge concerning Question No. 60 was academic qua the petitioner’s result.
Even a complete victory on his legal argument would not change the outcome of his candidature.
2. Completed selection process weighed against deciding an academic dispute
The Court also noted that no other candidate had approached it challenging the deletion of Question No. 60.
More importantly, the entire DHJSE-2024 selection and appointment process had already concluded.
In these circumstances, the Court considered it unnecessary to adjudicate an academic dispute incapable of providing consequential relief to the petitioner.
3. Court expressly left correctness of Question No. 60 undecided
An important aspect of the judgment is that the High Court did not uphold the Examination Committee’s view that Question No. 60 was ambiguous on merits.
Nor did it hold that the petitioner’s proposed answer was incorrect.
Instead, the Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the rival contentions regarding the correctness or incorrectness of Question No. 60.
Thus, the judgment turns upon the absence of consequential relief rather than upon a substantive ruling concerning Section 174 CrPC.
4. No legal basis existed for one-time age relaxation
The petitioner attempted to preserve some practical relief by seeking one-time age relaxation for the next DHJS examination.
He relied upon an interim order dated 15 June 2026 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 18196/2026, concerning the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service examination.
The High Court found the reliance misplaced.
That case concerned a candidate who had been disqualified for allegedly not applying through the proper channel, and the Supreme Court had merely permitted her to appear in the Mains Examination pending the SLP.
The factual and legal context was therefore materially different from the petitioner’s request for future age relaxation.
The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal basis for granting one-time age relaxation and rejected the oral prayer.
Precedent Analysis
Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka
The petitioner relied on Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 394 to support his substantive answer to Question No. 60.
He argued that the Supreme Court had recognised the limited evidentiary use of statements associated with Section 174 CrPC proceedings for corroborating or contradicting their maker at trial.
However, the Delhi High Court ultimately did not decide whether this precedent made Option (2) conclusively correct, because the petitioner could not qualify even after receiving the disputed mark.
Secretary (Health) v. Dr. Anita Puri
The petitioner relied upon this Supreme Court judgment to argue that alteration of an answer key, particularly without appropriate expert consideration, is susceptible to judicial scrutiny.
The High Court did not reject that proposition as a matter of law; rather, it found no need to apply it because adjudication would have no effect on the petitioner’s result.
Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and Rishal v. RPSC
These decisions were relied upon for the principle that courts can interfere where an answer key is palpably or demonstrably incorrect.
Again, the Court did not determine whether the present question satisfied that standard.
Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court
The respondent relied upon this decision to emphasise the limited scope of judicial intervention in examination matters and the deference ordinarily shown to expert examining bodies.
Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan
This Supreme Court precedent was cited by the respondent for the principle of judicial restraint in answer-key and competitive examination disputes, particularly where expert evaluation has already occurred.
Kushagra Mittal Minor v. National Testing Agency
The respondent similarly relied upon Kushagra Mittal Minor v. NTA to argue that where a question is capable of more than one view or causes confusion, the expert examining body ordinarily remains the appropriate authority to decide whether it should be retained or deleted.
The High Court, however, ultimately did not need to resolve this competing line of examination jurisprudence because the petitioner lacked any consequential benefit even if his substantive challenge succeeded.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court resolved the case on a narrow ground.
The petitioner needed 77 marks to qualify for the Mains Examination.
He had scored 75.75 marks.
Success regarding Question No. 60 could provide only one additional mark, increasing his score to 76.75.
Therefore, even accepting his entire argument concerning Question No. 60 would not have qualified him for the Mains Examination.
The controversy was consequently academic as far as his candidature was concerned.
The Court also considered that:
- no other candidate had challenged Question No. 60;
- the DHJSE-2024 selection process was complete;
- appointments had already been made; and
- reopening the substantive examination dispute could provide no effective relief to the petitioner.
It therefore deliberately refrained from determining whether Question No. 60 was actually ambiguous or whether Option (2) was legally correct.
The alternative request for age relaxation also failed because the petitioner demonstrated no statutory or legal entitlement to such relaxation.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge to deletion of Question No. 60 was merely academic because even if he received the disputed mark, his score would increase only from 75.75 to 76.75, still below the 77-mark cut-off for the Mains Examination.
Since the selection and appointment process had already concluded and no other candidate had challenged the question, the Court declined to adjudicate whether Question No. 60 was actually correct or ambiguous.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s request for one-time age relaxation for the next DHJS examination, finding no legal basis for granting such relief.
Case Details
Case: Neeraj Bhardwaj v. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Through Its Registrar General
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3547/2025 & CM APPL. 55528/2026; CNR No. DLHC010148442025
Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 21 August 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; challenge to deletion of Question No. 60 left undecided as academic, and request for one-time age relaxation rejected.
