Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr vs Vandana Gupta & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 7 April 2026
Pronounced on: 01 July2026
+ W.P.(C) 11249/2019, CM APPLs. 46320/2019 & 28328/2021
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam
and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for
GNCTD
versus
VANDANA GUPTA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Mary Mitzy and Ms. Vatsala
Chandra Chaturvedi, Advs.
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Anand Singh, Adv, Mr. Archit Gautam,
Adv, Ms. Saumya Johari, Adv
Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh,
Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan,
Advs. for Applicant/Respondent in CM
53867/2019
Mr. Puneet Rathi, Adv. for R-16, R-28 & R-
45
Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi Dua
and Mr. Abhimanyu Baliyan, Advs. for
Private Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 4178/2022 & CM APPL. 12523/2022
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam
and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for
GNCTD
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 24
versus
PREETI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv.
With Mr. Bhoop Singh, Mr. Anand Singh,
Mr. Archit Gautam, Ms. Saumya Johri, Mr.
Manoj Johri and Ms. Shikha Johri, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 4533/2022 & CM APPL. 13576/2022
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam
and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for
GNCTD
versus
ASHISH KANCHAP .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv.
With Mr. Bhoop Singh, Mr. Anand Singh,
Mr. Archit Gautam, Ms. Saumya Johri, Mr.
Manoj Johri and Ms. Shikha Johri, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
% JUDGMENT
01.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
A. Facts, and the lis
1. Examinations for recruitment of Primary Teachers in the Delhi
1
Government were conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services
1
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi/GNCTD
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 24
2
Selection Board in four phases, on 30 September 2018, 13 October
2018, 14 October 2018 and 28 October 2018, following
advertisements dated 7 August 2017 for Post Code 16/17 and 26 June
2018 for Post Code 1/18. The respondents participated in the
examination. Having failed to obtain success, the respondents
3 4 5
instituted OA 612/2019 , OA 815/2019 and OA 2151/2019 before
6
the Central Administrative Tribunal . OA 612/2019 was disposed of,
by the Tribunal, by order dated 14 October 2019, whereas OA
815/2019 and OA 2151/2019 were disposed of, vide order dated 12
November 2021. The GNCTD has, in these writ petitions, assailed the
said orders of the Tribunal.
2. The nature of the challenge by the applicants in OA 612/2019,
who are the respondents in WP (C) 11249/2019 is different from the
nature of the challenge by the applicants in OA 815/2019 and OA
7
2151/2019, who are the respondents in WP (C) 4533/2022 and WP
8
(C) 4178/2022 . As a result, the nature of the orders passed by the
Tribunal in these OAs is also distinct and different.
3. Certain basic facts are, however, common to all these writ
petitions and to the parent OAs and we may, therefore, straightaway
allude to them.
2
"DSSSB" hereinafter
3
Vandana Gupta & ors v. GNTCD & ors
4
Ashish Kanchap v. GNCTD & ors
5
Preeti & ors v. GNCTD & anr
6
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
7
Referred to, hereinafter, as Ashish Kanchap
8
Referred to, hereinafter, as Preeti
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 3 of 24
4. As already noted, the examination took place in four phases,
held on 30 September 2018, 13 October 2018, 14 October 2018 and
28 October 2018. The Draft Answer Keys, of these examinations,
were released on 17 October 2018, 30 October 2018, 31 October 2018
and 5 November 2018 respectively. The respondents in Preeti and
Ashish Kanchap claim to have found certain errors in the questions
and answers contained in the Draft Answer Key dated 17 October
2018, against which they submitted representations, within the time
permitted, on 21 October 2018. The representations were rejected,
resulting in the candidates approaching the Tribunal by way of OA
815/2019 and OA 2151/2019.
5. The Tribunal has disposed of OA 815/2019 and OA 2151/2019
by a common order dated 12 November 2021, by observing that the
objections of the applicants before it were not properly considered by
the examining authorities and, therefore, directing the examining
authorities to reconsider the objections by co-opting experts and,
thereafter, proceed to declare the results.
6. Adverting, now, to the challenge in OA 612/2019, which forms
subject matter of consideration in WP (C) 11249/2019. The
respondents contend that, after the fourth phase of examination was
conducted on 28 October 2018, it came to their notice that some of the
questions were common to the papers in different phases. This was
required to be remedied. According to the respondents the matter was,
therefore, considered by the DSSSB in its meeting on 29 October
2018, and a decision was taken (i) to delete, from the papers in all
Phases, questions which figured in any other paper and (ii) to award
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 4 of 24
marks, across the Board, for the said questions on pro rata basis,
depending on the percentage of marks scored by the candidate in the
remaining questions. The petitioners also resorted to normalization
using the “Score Normalisation Based on Deviation Method” with
which we are not really concerned. This decision was communicated
with a Public Notice dated 1 February 2019. The applicants in OA
612/2019 challenged this Public Notice dated 1 February 2019.
7. The Tribunal, vide order dated 14 October 2019, disposed of
OA 612/2019, holding that (i) even if some of the questions were
common to different phases, it was illogical to delete any question
from phase I, as the candidates attempting that phase were seeing the
questions for the first time and (ii) the pro rata marking method
followed by the DSSSB was also unsustainable in law. The grant of
marks on pro rata basis for deleted questions, based on the
performance of the candidate in the remaining questions was,
according to the Tribunal, illogical” and could, in a given case, even
result in grant of marks to candidates who did not attempt the deleted
questions at all, merely because they may have performed well in the
remaining questions. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the Public
Notice dated 1 February 2019, with the observation that it was open to
the DSSSB to evolve a lawful and objective mechanism to assess the
papers and, thereafter, declare the results.
8. This decision of the Tribunal forms subject matter of challenge
in WP (C) 11249/2019.
B. Issues
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 5 of 24
9. Thus, on merits, we are concerned,
(i) in WP (C) 11249/2019, with the legality of the decision
of the DSSSB to (a) delete, from the papers in all phases,
questions which were common to any other phase and (b)
adopt the pro rata method for awarding marks against the
deleted questions and,
(ii) in Preeti and Ashish Kanchap , with the question of
whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the
objections raised by the respondents in the said writ petitions,
as the applicants before it, to the Draft Answer Key, were not
properly considered and, therefore, directing a reconsideration
of the objections after co-opting experts.
C. A Preliminary Issue
10. On 21 February 2019, the Tribunal issued notice in OA
612/2019 and restrained the DSSSB from declaring the results of the
selection for a period of two weeks. However, on the next date, i.e. 12
March 2019, while adjourning the OA for 1 April 2019, the Tribunal
did not extend the interim order. As a result, the results of the
selection process for the post of Primary Teacher were declared on 28
March 2019, and e-dossiers of the selected candidates forwarded to
the concerned user departments who, in many cases, had also
conducted medical verification and issued appointment letters to the
selected candidates, who had joined. Nonetheless, on 1 April 2019, the
Tribunal, while adjourning the matter to 9 April 2019, directed
continuance of the interim relief already granted. In the circumstances,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 6 of 24
MA 1313/2019 was filed by the GNCTD/DSSSB before the Tribunal
for recall of the order dated 1 April 2019, pointing out that, as the
earlier interim order dated 21 February 2019 had not been continued
on 12 March 2019, the results were declared and candidates had
joined. The Tribunal, by order dated 12 April 2019, recalled the order
dated 1 April 2019.
11. In these circumstances, it was, to our mind, incumbent on the
applicants in these OAs to implead the selected candidates, especially
those who had already joined service consequent on selection. This
was never done. The Tribunal has proceeded to dispose of all three
OAs without ensuring that selected candidates were impleaded.
12. We might have been inclined to allow these writ petitions, and
set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal on this sole ground.
However, in view of the following order which came to be passed by
this Court while issuing notice in WP (C) 11249/2019 on 21 October
2019, the Court was informed that, pursuant to selection, appointment
letters had been issued and the successful candidates have also
undergone medical examination, following which some of them had
joined service. Nonetheless, the Court issued notice, making all
appointments subject to the final order in the writ petition. It was
further directed that the successful candidates who had joined service
be informed about the pendency of the writ petition and that no special
equity would enure to their benefit.
13. Following this, during the course of these proceedings, various
applications have been filed by candidates who have sought to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 7 of 24
intervene, or be impleaded, in the proceedings, and all have been
allowed. Some have supported the impugned order; others have
opposed it. Considerable confusion, we are constrained to observe,
could have been avoided, had the Tribunal required impleadment of
affected parties before deciding the lis . Be that as it may, we have,
before us, now, various submissions on either side, and, in their light,
we have to adjudicate on the appeal.
D. Facts
14. Let us reconnoitre the facts.
15. Advertisements for recruitment to the post of Teacher Primary
in schools under the GNCTD, under Post Codes 16/17 and 1/18, were
issued on 7 August 2017 and 26 June 2018, to be conducted by the
DSSSB. Selections for recruitment under both Post Codes were held
simultaneously. The candidates had to undergo written examinations
which, owing to the number of candidates who had applied, were held
in four batches/phases on 30 September 2018, 13 October 2018, 14
October 2018 and 28 October 2018.
16. On 31 May 2018, before any of the examinations were held, the
DSSSB issued a Public Notice, from which the following passage is
relevant:
“Due to infrastructural constraints, it is possible that the
examination could be held in multiple shifts involving different set
of question. In such a scenario, normalisation of marks obtained by
the candidates in various states would be done to account for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 8 of 24
variation in difficulty level as per the normalisation formula to be
notified by the Board on the website.”
17. Pursuant thereto, the DSSSB, on 11 July 2018, issued the
following Notice, notifying the Normalisation Formula:
“F.No.10(271)/Sec.Cell/DSSSB/18/989 Dated:-11/07/18
NOTICE
As mentioned in the public notice F.No.10(271)/Sec.
Cell/DSSSB/18/718 dated 31/05/2018 regarding partially shifting
to online exam, in case of an exam being held in multiple shifts,
normalisation of marks obtained by candidate will be done to
account for variation in difficulty level. Normalisation will be done
by using "Score Normalisation Based on Deviation Method"
formula which is as under;
Xn=(S2/S1)*(X-Xav)+Yav
(Xn) Normalized Score for each candidate
S2 Is the SD of the shift with the Highest
Average Score taken as base for
normalization
S1 Standard Deviation for the corresponding
shift (to be scaled to S2)
X Raw score of a candidate
Xav Simple average of the Shift
Yav Average corresponding to shift with highest
Average (taken as base for normalization)
Clearly, therefore, the Normalisation Formula was intended to cater
only to variation in difficulty levels among the papers held on various
dates, as the questions were intended to be different.
18. Draft Answer Keys for the papers held on the aforesaid dates
were released on 17 October 2018, 30 October 2018, 31 October 2018
and 5 November 2018 respectively. The respondents in Preeti and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 9 of 24
Ashish Kanchap submitted representations, challenging the Draft
Answer Key dated 17 October 2018, in respect of certain questions.
The representations were rejected on 5 December 2018, without citing
any reason. Following this, final answer keys were issued on 4
December 2018 and 11 December 2018. This forms of subject matter
of challenge in the OAs instituted by Preeti and Ashish Kanchap, from
which the corresponding writ petitions emanate.
19. In the interregnum, the DSSSB contends that, on 29 October
2018, it came to its notice that some of the questions already raised in
earlier phases were repeated in later Phases. On the same day, the
DSSSB, in its meeting, took a decision to delete, from all phases,
questions which were repeated in any other phase. The following
Public Notice was, accordingly, issued by the DSSSB on 29 October
2018:
“F.No.10(293)/Sec. Cell/DSSSB/2018/ 1670
Dated 29/10/18
Public Notice
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board conducted
examinations for the post of Primary Teacher (Post Code 16/17 and
1/18) in four batches on 30/09/2018, 13/10/2018, 14/10/2018 &
28/10/18.
Now, it has been brought to the notice of the Board that a
few questions were exact replica both in wordings of the question
and their response options in certain question papers.
The matter has been considered by the Board and in the
interest of fairness and for providing a level playing field to all the
candidates, it has been decided to delete these questions from the
different batches of examination. These questions shall not be
counted for the purposes of evaluation.
S/d
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 10 of 24
Dy. Secretary, DSSSB”
20. In accordance with the above decision, questions which were
found to be common to more than one phase were deleted from all
papers and Notice dated 1 February 2019 issued in that regard:
“F.10(305)/Sec.Cell/DSSSB/2018/114 Dated 01/02/2019
NOTICE
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board had conducted
exam, for the post of Teacher (Primary) Post 1/18 & 16/17 in four
batches on 30/09/2018, 13/10/18, 14/10/18 and 28/10/18.
Information had been received by the Board that certain questions
had been repeated.
2. Matter was considered and it was found that questions
mentioned in table below were either exact replica or had similar
wordings and same options in different batches of examinations for
said post code.
Sl. No. Question Numbers as per Master Set
already uploaded on website of DSSSB
30/09/18 13/10/18 14/10/18 28/10/18
1. 104 - - 104
2. - - 124 113
3. - 128 - 121
4. - 183 - 127
5. 170 - - 128
6. - 119 - 155
7. 147 - - 159
8. 152 - - 164
9. 102 - - 173
10. 141 - - 176
11. 114 - - 193
12. 118 - - 195
13. 124 - - 196
14. - 193 - 146
15. - 126 - 171
Total 09 05 01 15
3. Apart from the above, DSSSB was also in receipt of
information that one question with casteist undertone had appeared
in the question paper for the exam held for the post of Pr. Teacher
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 11 of 24
Post Code 1/18 & 16/17 held on 13/10/18. It was also decided to
delete this question as well. Details of the question is as under;
Date of exam Question Number as per the master set
already uploaded on the website of
DSSSB
13/10/18 73
4. Accordingly, questions from master set viz. 09 questions of
exam dated 30/09/18; 06 of exam dated 13/10/18; 01 of 14/10/18
and 15 of exam dated 28/10/18, as detailed in tables at para 2 & 4
above, shall stand deleted and shall not be considered for the
purpose of evaluation.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Sd/-
Dy. Secretary
DSSSB”
21. This Notice, dated 1 February 2019, formed subject matter of
challenge before the Tribunal in OA 612/2019, from which WP (C)
11249/2019 emanates.
E. Impugned Orders
I. Order dated 14 October 2019 in OA 612/2019
22. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order dated 14 October
2019, held that the exercise conducted by the DSSSB, in order to
remedy the repetition of questions in the papers relating to different
phases, suffered from various infirmities. There was no justification
for deleting any question from Phase one which was conducted on 30
September 2018, as all questions in the paper in this phase were being
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 12 of 24
asked for the first time. None of the questions in phase one could,
therefore, be treated as “repeats”.
23. The mechanism of granting pro rata marks for the deleted
questions, on the basis of the performance of the candidate in the
remaining questions, also did not find favour with the Tribunal. This
method, as the impugned judgment holds, would result in rank
discrimination, as a candidate who did not even attempt the deleted
questions, but performed well in the remaining questions, would get
the benefit of his performance in the remaining questions and even for
the deleted questions which he did not attempt, whereas a candidate
who may not have performed so well in the remaining questions, but
answered all deleted questions correctly, would suffer only because of
his performance in the remaining questions. The Tribunal did not find
this to be sustainable in law.
24. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the notice dated 1 February
2019 and left it open to the DSSSB to evolve an alternative lawful and
objective mechanism to deal with the situation of repeat questions
and, thereafter, declare the results.
II. Order dated 12 November 2021 in OA 815/2019 and OA
2151/2019
25. The Tribunal, in its order dated 12 November 2021, allowed
OA 815/2019 and OA 2151/2019 on the ground that the objections
raised by the respondents – i.e., the applicants before the Tribunal –
were not properly considered before rejection, and there was no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 13 of 24
explanation as to why, in respect of certain questions, more than one
correct answer could be found. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the
objections raised by the respondents to be referred to experts, who
were directed to consider them afresh and give reasons for their
conclusions.
F. Rival contentions
I. Re. WP (C) 11249/2019
26. The submissions of Ms. Ahlawat, opposing the impugned order,
have been echoed by some of the intervenors and newly impleaded
respondents.
27. It is necessary, at the outset, to emphasise one fact. The
respondents have, at various points in the writ petition as well as in the
written submissions, stated that pro rata marks were awarded, in
respect of the deleted questions, on the basis of the Score
Normalisation Based on Deviation Method notified vide Notice dated
11 July 2018 supra . This, apparently, is not correct and, if it has been
done, the entire exercise would be vitiated. The Score Normalisation
Method notified vide Notice dated 11 July 2018 is specifically to deal
with a situation in which there is difference in difficulty levels
between different papers, as the papers are not supposed to contain
similar questions. The Normalisation Method is not intended to be a
matter of allotting marks in respect of deleted questions. A holistic
reading of the pleadings indicates that the DSSSB adopted both
methods; the pro rata marking method for awarding marks to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 14 of 24
deleted questions and the Normalisation Method in respect of
differences in difficulty levels.
28. The challenge, in the OA from which this writ petition
emanates is only with respect to the deleted questions. As such, the
Normalisation Method, or its applicability, does not seriously concern
the present controversy.
29. Ms. Ahlawat submits that the method of awarding pro rata
marks to the deleted questions also stands approved by the Supreme
Court. There was, therefore, no cause for the Tribunal to set it aside.
She points out that no objection was raised to the Public Notice dated
29 October 2018 supra , whereby the decision to remove the deleted
questions from consideration was communicated. Pro rata benefit for
the deleted questions, she submits, was extended across the board to
all 73,488 candidates who had attempted the examinations. Following
this, 8673 candidates were shortlisted, and e-dossiers, obtained from
them, were forwarded to the concerned user departments. Many of the
candidates, thereafter, been appointed, and have been serving the user
departments for years.
30. Ms. Ahlawat further submits that, even if the deleted questions
were to be taken into consideration, the respondents, except for two
who were selected, would not make the cut off or qualify for selection.
As such, she exhorts this Court to set aside the impugned order of the
Tribunal and uphold the manner in which the DSSSB evaluated the
candidates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 15 of 24
31. The submissions of Ms. Ahlawat were echoed by learned
Counsel for the intervenors.
32. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. M.K.
Bharadwaj, learned Counsel, support the impugned order of the
Tribunal. Additionally, it is sought to be pointed out that, as a result of
the faulty method adopted by the DSSSB, the candidates who
attempted the paper in the fourth phase on 28 October 2018 had a
windfall, as the draft answer key for the paper which was held on 30
September 2018 in the first phase was uploaded on 17 October 2018,
and several of the questions in the first phase were repeated in the
fourth phase. As such, the candidates were at the benefit of the correct
answers to the said questions, even as per the DSSSB. Otherwise, Ms.
Chopra submits that there was no justification for deleting any
questions from the first phase and that questions to have been deleted
only from the second, third and fourth phases. It is also sought to be
contended that the number of repeat questions has been wrongly
calculated and that they are, in fact, much more than the number of
questions worked out by the DSSSB.
II. WP (C) 4533/2022 ( Ashish Kanchap ) and WP (C) 4178/2022
( Preeti )
33. In these writ petitions, the DSSSB has merely stated that the
objections raised by the respondents were referred to experts and that
the final decision thereon was taken as per the opinion of the experts.
Apart from this, the DSSSB places reliance on the judgment of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 16 of 24
9
Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , which
advocates against Courts re-evaluating or scrutinising answer sheets or
examining whether the suggested answers are correct or not.
G. Analysis
I. Re. WP (C) 11249/2019
34. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order dated 14 October
2019, disapproved of the manner in which marks were allotted by the
DSSSB for the deleted questions. Besides, the Tribunal has held that
there was no justification for deleting any question from phase one, as
no questions were repeats in the said paper.
35. We have to examine whether this decision of the Tribunal
merits interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
36. Insofar as repeated questions are concerned, we have to
presume that there was an intent to ensure that there were no questions
which were repeated in different phases. Indeed, this was the basis of
the Normalisation Formula notified by the DSSSB on 11 July 2018. In
the Public Notice dated 31 May 2018, which preceded the Notice
dated 11 July 2018, it is clearly stated that, as the examinations in
different phases were to have different sets of questions , infrastructural
constraints were required for examination to be held in multiple shifts.
This would result in a situation in which there was a possibility of
difference in difficulty level in the examinations held in different
9
(2018) 2 SCC 357
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 17 of 24
phases, which was what prompted the second Notice dated 11 July
2018, notifying the Normalisation Formula, to neutralise the
difference in difficulty level.
37. As such, as the questions in the different phases were intended,
from the very beginning, to be different, it is clear that, when some of
them were found to be the same, some remedy had to be devised.
38. Some of the intervenors have sought to contend that the number
of repeat questions has been wrongly computed by the DSSSB. The
affidavits filed in this regard also seek to point out other questions
which, according to the said intervenors, were also repeat questions
but were not included by the DSSSB in its evaluation of the number of
questions which had been repeated.
39. We have gone through the submissions of the intervenors in that
regard, as well as the questions other than those which were regarded
as repeat questions by the DSSSB, and do not find any error in the
decision of the DSSSB regarding the number of questions which were
repeated. Even if there are minor differences in the questions, they
cannot be regarded as repeat questions. In that view of the matter, we
have to defer to the discretion of the DSSSB regarding the number of
questions which were entitled to be treated as repeat questions. We,
therefore, reject the submission of the intervenors to the effect that the
number of repeat questions was wrongly computed by the DSSSB.
40. From a perusal of the documents on record, we have noticed a
feature which seems to have escaped the attention of the Tribunal. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 18 of 24
decision to award pro rata marks to the deleted questions is contrary
to the Public Notice dated 29 October 2018 and the subsequent Notice
dated 1 February 2019 (which was impugned in OA 612/2019). Both
these Notices stated that the repeat questions would be deleted from
the question papers and would not be considered for the purpose of
evaluation . The decision to evaluate the deleted questions and award
pro rata marks to the deleted questions is, therefore, directly contrary
to the decision communicated by the Public Notice dated 29 October
2018 and the subsequent Notice dated 1 February 2019.
41. Nonetheless, if the repeat questions were to be deleted from
every phase, it would result in an iniquitous situation in which the
number of questions from which the candidates were marked in
different phases would be different. This would also, therefore, be
impermissible. It is obvious that, when a selection is being made by
conducting the examination in different phases, and the number of
questions in the examinations are the same, the same number of
questions have to constitute the basis for evaluating the merits of the
candidates in all phases. The DSSSB could not, therefore, be
permitted to delete different numbers of questions from the
examinations conducted in different phases and evaluate the papers on
the remaining balance.
42. The result would be that the evaluation of the papers in the
different phases for all have to be on the basis of all 100 questions,
including the deleted questions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 19 of 24
43. Which, then, throws up the issue of whether the decision to
award pro rata marks for the deleted questions was legally sustainable.
44. The Tribunal has correctly relied on para 19 of the judgment of
the High Court of Madras in J. Antony Clara v. State of Tamil
10
Nadu , which, in turn, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
11
in Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh . In Vikas Pratap
Singh , the Supreme Court upheld the evaluation of the deleted
questions on pro rata basis though, in that case, there was a specific
clause in the applicable Rules which provided for such evaluation.
The specific clause in that regard, to the extent it dealt with the
manner in which the deleted questions were to be evaluated, read thus:
“On such rejection of question upon the recommendation of
Subject Expert Committee, on such questions the marks would be
awarded by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board
(Vyapam) to the candidates in proportion to their marks obtained
in the particular question paper. Whether the rejected question has
been or not been attempted. The question papers in which the
questions have been rejected, their evaluation procedure would be
as follows, if in any question papers out of 100 questions 2
questions are rejected and after evaluation candidate secures 81
marks out of 98 questions then in such case calculation of marks
would be done as (81 × 100)/100 − 2 = 82.65 . On which basis
merit would be determined.”
The grant of marks for the deleted questions pro rata on the basis of
the percentage of marks scored by the candidate in the remaining
questions is precisely what the rule, which was before the Supreme
Court in Vikas Pratap Singh , provided. It cannot, therefore, be said to
be illegal in any manner.
10
2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3023
11
(2013) 14 SCC 494
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 20 of 24
45. The decision to award pro rata marks to the deleted questions,
based on the performance of the candidate in the remaining questions
in that particular paper is, therefore, upheld.
46. The only issue which remains to be considered is with respect
to whether the Tribunal was correct in its view that deletion of
questions should have taken place only from the second, third and
fourth phases, and not from the first phase. The Tribunal has sought
to justify this decision on the ground that there would be no repeat
questions in the first phase, so that the decision to delete questions
from that phase was illogical.
47. Though the reasoning appears facially attractive, on a deeper
analysis, it would result in discrimination and inequity. If the repeat
questions were to be deleted only from the second, third and fourth
phases, it would result in a situation in which all questions in the paper
in the first phase would be evaluated, including those questions which
were repeated in later phases, whereas the candidates who attempted
the later phases would be evaluated only in respect of the questions
which were not deleted. A different methodology of evaluation of the
candidates who attempted the first Phase, vis-à-vis those who
attempted the remaining three phases, is ex facie unsustainable in law
and would amount to discriminating between persons identically
situated, which would infract Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. It would result in candidates in different phases being evaluated
in respect of different numbers of questions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 21 of 24
48. A holistic perspective, balancing the equities would, therefore,
justify the decision of the DSSSB to delete the questions from all four
phases, to the extent they were repeated.
49. We, therefore, cannot sustain the impugned order of the
Tribunal, to the extent it holds that no questions from the first phase
ought to have been deleted. We sustain the decision of the DSSSB to
delete the repeat questions from all four phases.
50. As a result, in our view, the decision of the DSSSB to delete the
repeat questions from all phases, as well as to award pro rata marks to
the deleted questions, has to be upheld in totality.
51. Resultantly, we have no option but to set aside the impugned
order dated 14 October 2019 passed by the Tribunal in OA 612/2019.
52. The OA would, therefore, stand dismissed.
II. WP (C) 4533/2022 and WP (C) 4178/2022
53. The only ground on which the Tribunal has proceeded, in this
case, is that the objections raised by the respondents were not
considered properly by experts. The Tribunal has, therefore, directed
that the objections be referred to experts and a fresh decision be taken.
54. During the course of the present proceedings, this Court, vide
order dated 6 February 2025, directed the DSSSB to place, on
affidavit, the opinion of the experts with respect to Questions 75, 118,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 22 of 24
130, 133, 134, 141, 144, 181, 184 and 192 in respect of which the
Tribunal has directed re-examination by experts.
55. The DSSSB has, in compliance therewith, placed on record,
under affidavits dated 5 March 2025, the opinions of the experts with
respect to the aforementioned questions. We find, therefrom, that the
experts have not only given reasons for their view, but have also
referred to the relevant texts, as well as provided extracts therefrom, to
support their conclusions.
56. It does not appear, from the record, that the above material was
placed on record before the Tribunal. Had it been, the Tribunal might
not have passed the order which it came to pass, and we would have
been spared the necessity of dealing with these writ petitions.
57. Be that as it may, in such circumstances, we are not inclined to
allow a re-visitation of the correctness of the decision of the DSSSB,
based on the opinion of the experts, with respect to the aforenoted
Questions 75, 118, 130, 133, 134, 141, 144, 181, 184 and 192
especially at this late day, when the recruitment process has been
closed, results have been declared, communicated to the user
departments, selected candidates have been appointed and have been
continuing in service for a number of years.
58. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in these
writ petitions is also quashed and set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 23 of 24
H. Conclusion
59. Resultantly, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated
14 October 2019 in OA 612/2019 and the order dated 12 November
2021 in OA 815/2019 and OA 2151/2019. The OAs would, therefore,
stand dismissed.
60. The writ petitions stand allowed accordingly with no orders as
to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JULY 01, 2026 /aky/yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
13:19:34
W.P.(C) 11249/2019 and connected matters Page 24 of 24