Arvind And Ors vs Registrar General High Court Of Delhi And Ors

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 24.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5600/2026
ARVIND AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI
AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Adv. for R-1 and 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950,
for quashing of the Memorandum dated 28.02.2026 and the final roll
number-wise result of the Junior Judicial Assistant [‘JJA’]/Restorer
Departmental Examination-2023.
2. The Petitioners herein joined the services as a Chauffer, Court
Attendant, etc., i.e., the Group-C posts in the establishment of the High
Court of Delhi on various dates ranging from 2017- 2020.
3. The Examination Cell of this Court vide circular dated 20.12.2023
invited applications from eligible officials for filling up 71 posts of
JJA/Restorer under the 25% quota to be filled up by the Departmental
Competitive Examination. The Petitioners herein met the requisite eligibility
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 1 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

criteria applied under the aforesaid posts of JJA/Restorers, respectively. The
circular prescribed a scheme of the examination depicting that there are
three stages to the LDCE process, namely Stage I, Stage II and Stage III. As
per the Stage I of the examination comprises a written test of a maximum of
one hundred marks, consisting of two Parts, i.e., Part A and Part B, each
carrying 50 marks. Part A of the written examination was to have questions
to test candidates’ knowledge of General Knowledge and Current Affairs,
and Part B was for testing the General English of the candidates. Candidates
were mandated to score a minimum of 20 marks for Part A and Part B each.
The candidates who scored a minimum of twenty marks in Part A and
20 marks in Part B of Stage I would be permitted to partake in the
subsequent Stage.
4. Vide circular dated 09.10.2024, the examination branch notified that
the Stage I [written test] was to be conducted on 27.10.2024.
5. During the said written test, a certain number of questions were out of
the syllabus. Pertinently, question nos. 42, 44 and 46 of Part A pertained to
logical reasoning, whereas Part A of the Stage I was supposed to be General
Knowledge, and question no.74 of Part B was to translate a passage from
Hindi to English, whereas Part B was supposed to be General English.
6. Representations were submitted by the candidates regarding the
inclusion of out-of-syllabus questions, which were duly acknowledged by
the Competent Authority. Consequently, vide memorandum dated
28.05.2025, the said questions were declared to be out of the syllabus.
7. The Respondents adopted an extrapolation method for finalising the
results of the candidates. The Petitioners have been declared as ‘Fail’ only
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 2 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

for the reason that they did not meet the minimum benchmark of 40% of
marks in either part of the examination in view of the method adopted. It is
stated that the reason for such failure was that for a set of candidates, the
total score, including that of the dropped/deleted questions, was considered,
and for a set of candidates, the interpolated marks were taken into account
whilst ascertaining the eligibility. This methodology led to the fact that a set
of candidates was assessed and declared passed on the basis of
dropped/deleted questions. The said methodology of dealing with the
scenario was neither contemplated in the rules of the examination nor was
this notified to the candidates before declaration of results; it was only at the
time of declaration of results that such a decision to proceed with this
differential method of marking was disclosed.
8. In these facts, the Petitioners have preferred the present petition.
Submissions by the Petitioners
9. Mr. Chhibber, learned counsel for the Petitioners, states that the
decision of the Respondents to award the higher of the two scores has
resulted in differential and arbitrary treatment of candidates qua the
questions declared to be out of the syllabus. Once the questions were
declared out of the syllabus, the only fair and remedial measure was to
award marks for such questions to all candidates who attempted them.
10. He states that Petitioner No. 1 was declared to have passed Part A but
failed in Part B due to an extrapolation method adopted by the Respondents
after the said questions were declared out of the syllabus.
The marksheet issued by the Respondents reflects for Part B that
Column [9] indicates the marks obtained in the original paper out of 50.
Column [10] specifies the marks awarded for question no. 74, which carried
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 3 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

6 marks and was subsequently declared out of syllabus by the examining
authority itself. Column [11] represents the total marks recalculated out of
44, excluding the said question. Column [12] sets out the extrapolated
marks, arrived at by computing the percentage secured out of 44 and
proportionately scaling it to a base of 50. Furthermore, for the purpose of
preparation of the merit list, the higher of the scores reflected in Columns
[11] and [12] would be considered.
11. He states that, however, the adoption of this methodology resulted in
practical prejudice to candidates such as the Petitioners herein, as they were
rendered unsuccessful under both scenarios, whether their performance was
assessed on the original scale of 50 marks or on the basis of extrapolated
scores.
12. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, Kanpur
1
University v. Samir Gupta , to state that it is incumbent upon the
competent authority to award ‘free marks’ against the out-of-syllabus
questions to each of the candidates who have attempted or wrongly
attempted the dropped questions. The said submission reads as follows: -
“15. That the aforesaid decision of the competent authority to take higher
marks amongst the two categories has created a differential treatment qua
the wrong questions, as one set of candidates are being benefitted from
the marks scored in the out of syllabus questions being added to their
scores, whereas once the questions have been declared to be wrong/out of
syllabus, the remedial measure should have been to award marks to each
and every candidate having attempted such out of syllabus questions and
not to do otherwise be allowed to be assessed. The methodology as
devised by the Competent Authority has caused non uniform application
of determination of merit.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
1
(1983) 4 SCC 309
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 4 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

Submissions by the Respondents
13. Mr. Chetan Lokur, learned counsel, appears on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 on advance service.
14. He states that the grievance raised in the petition is misconceived. He
states that it is a matter of record that in the Part A examination, question
nos. 42, 44 and 46, which carried 1 mark each, were declared out of the
syllabus, and consequently, the valid questions carried a value of 47 marks.
Similarly, in the Part B examination, question no. 74, which carried 6 marks,
was declared out of syllabus, and consequently, the valid questions carried a
value of 44 marks.
15. He states that the score of the candidates for the valid questions out of
44 marks in Part A and 47 marks in Part B was assessed, as well as the score
of the candidates out of 50 marks after including the incorrect question was
also assessed.
16. He states that the score of the candidate for the valid questions out of
44/47 was extrapolated to 50 marks using the formula set out in column no.
6/column no. 12, respectively, to arrive at a score on the basis of
proportionate re-distribution of the marks.
17. He states that for the students who attempted the dropped questions
and scored on these questions have been given the benefit while comparing
their actual marks with the extrapolated marks. He states that this method
was therefore fair to the candidate who had not attempted the question, as
well as the candidate who had attempted the question. He states that the
Respondents have consciously taken a decision not to adopt the policy of
awarding ‘free marks’ for the dropped questions to each of the candidates.
18. He submits that the judgment of Kanpur University (supra), relied
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 5 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

upon by the Petitioners, is inapplicable.
Court’s Findings
19. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
20. In the facts of this case, during the examination for Stage I, a few
questions, which were out of the syllabus, were included in both Part A and
Part B. After the examination was concluded, upon representation, the out-
of-syllabus questions were dropped by the Respondents vide memorandum
dated 28.05.2025.
21. It is a matter of record that 3 questions were dropped from Part A,
which contained 46 questions, leaving 43 valid questions. Similarly, 1
question was dropped from Part B, which contained 30 questions, leaving 29
valid questions.
22. The Respondents had to therefore now effectively evaluate each
candidate out of 43 valid questions carrying 47 marks in Part A, and 29 valid
questions carrying 44 marks in Part B.
The examination, however, was conducted for a total of 50 marks for
each part, with the cut-off threshold fixed at 40%, i.e., 20 marks.
In these facts, the Respondents adopted the extrapolation method for
assessing the final score of the candidate out of 50 marks, on the basis of the
marks actually scored by the candidate for the correct answers given to the
valid questions.
23. In a competitive examination, when a question is dropped for any
reason, instead of reducing the total marks in the paper, by using the
extrapolation method , the marks allocated to the dropped question are
distributed across the remaining valid questions, thereby effectively
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 6 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

increasing the weightage of valid questions in the paper.
24. For instance, in an examination that has 50 questions, each carrying 1
mark, where the cut-off threshold is 40% [i.e. 20 marks], if 2 questions are
dropped, the 2 marks equal to these questions are distributed to the 48 valid
questions. Thus, if initially each question in this examination carried a value
of 1 mark, by using this method, the 48 valid questions will now carry a
2
value of 1.0416 marks each, i.e., 50/48. The effect is that the final score is
still out of 50, maintaining the standard cut-off threshold of 20 marks, and
since the remaining 48 questions now have a higher value of 1.0416, the
impact/value of the correct answer increases for all the candidates.
25. Mathematical expression of the formula is as follows: -
y 1 represents the actual marks scored by the candidate out of the 48
valid questions.
y represents the final score credited to the candidate on the basis of
this formula.
This formula is the mathematical expression of proportionate redistribution
of marks when the questions are dropped.
26. The extrapolation method effectively increases the weightage of every
remaining question, since the correct answer in this instance contributes
more to the final score of the candidate than it would have originally. This
2
approximately
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 7 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

method ensures equality for all candidates and is accurate.
27. In the facts of this case, we are concerned with Stage I of the
examination, which consisted of 2 papers. Part A was for General
Knowledge, carrying 50 marks, and Part B was for General English, also
carrying 50 marks. The candidate had to score 40% [i.e., 20 marks] in Part A
and Part B, respectively.
27.1. Part A consisted of 46 questions carrying 50 marks. However, 3
questions being question nos. 42, 44 and 46 carrying 1 mark each were
dropped vide memorandum dated 28.05.2025. Consequently, there were 43
valid questions carrying 47 marks. The Respondents, however, had to
evaluate the marks of the candidate out of 50 and to assess that the candidate
had scored 40%, i.e., 20 marks.
28. The Respondents adopted the extrapolation method for marking the
candidates out of 50 marks. For this purpose, Respondents first assessed the
actual marks scored by all the candidates for the 43 valid questions. The
candidate’s actual marks were scored out of 47 marks. Thereafter, using the
extrapolation method , the Respondents applied the formula
to arrive at the candidate’s score out of 50 marks. The score arrived at by the
formula is extrapolated from the 43 questions actually answered to the full
scale of 50 questions. In fact, the effect of the extrapolation method is that
the marks obtained by a candidate for the correct answers to the 43 questions
are proportionately enhanced, thereby contributing to a higher final score out
of 50.
The application of the extrapolation method in no manner affected the
rights and interests of the candidate, who did not attempt the dropped
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 8 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

questions or wrongly attempted them, since the value of total marks, i.e., 50,
was redistributed to the 43 valid questions.
With respect to a candidate who attempted a dropped question and
answered it correctly, marks were awarded for the correctly answered
dropped question while evaluating the candidate’s score out of 50 marks.
For instance, Petitioner No. 2 correctly answered a dropped question no. 42,
he was assigned 1 mark for question no. 42 and his total marks were 20 out
of 50. However, Petitioner No. 2 scored 19 marks for the 43 valid questions
carrying 47 marks. When the extrapolation method was used, by applying
the formula and using the 19 marks score, on extrapolation, Petitioner No. 2
scored 20.21 out of 50. Since the extrapolated score was higher, Petitioner
No. 2 was granted 20.21 marks and declared ‘Pass’ for the Part A-General
Knowledge examination.
29. Thus, the application of the extrapolation method results in the
redistribution of the question value.
30. Part B, which pertains to General English, consists of 30 questions,
which carry a total of 50 marks. Question No. 74, which carried 6 marks,
was dropped by the Respondents vide memorandum dated 28.05.2025.
30.1. With the disqualification of the question no. 74, which carried 6
marks, the 29 valid questions carried 44 marks, and the candidates had to be
marked out of 50. Thereafter, using the extrapolation method, the
Respondents applied the formula
, extrapolated the score of
the candidate earned from 29 questions actually answered to the full scale of
30 questions.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 9 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

3
30.2. For instance, in the case of a candidate at Roll No. 4 who had scored
37 marks out of 44 marks in respect of the 29 valid questions, by applying
the extrapolation method , he was awarded 42.05 marks out of 50 marks.
However, the same candidate [i.e., Roll No. 4] had also attempted the
dropped question no. 74 and had scored 5 out of 6 marks, and therefore his
actual score was indeed 42 out of 50.
Still, since this candidate got higher marks by the application of the
extrapolation method , he was granted the credit of the higher of the marks.
31. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the
extrapolation method adopted by the Respondents is arbitrary, and the only
course that could have been adopted by the Respondents was to give ‘free
marks’ for the dropped questions to each of the candidates who wrongly
attempted the said question in view of the judgment of Kanpur University
(supra). In the judgment of Kanpur University (supra), controversy arose
with respect to 3 questions, one each in the papers of Chemistry, Zoology
and Botany. As per the rules, if the student ticked the correct answer, he
would have secured 3 marks, and if a student ticked an incorrect answer, he
would have lost one mark. Each paper was for a duration of 3 hours. The
students therein [who approached the High Court] attempted these 3
questions, which were multiple-choice objective-type questions, where 4
alternate answers were given to the students. The students therein chose the
answer that turned out to be contrary to the answer key provided by the
paper setter. Consequently, the students were given one mark negative for
each question. However, the High Court came to the conclusion that the
3
Afzal Hussain
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 10 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

answer key provided by the paper setter was incorrect and these students had
rightly answered the 3 questions. The High Court accordingly directed that
the students will be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions
correctly answered, and the negative mark would also be recalled.
The aforesaid judgment of the High Court was carried in appeal to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, on scrutiny, having found that the
answer key provided by the paper setter was indeed wrong, concurred with
the judgment of the High Court and upheld the direction that each of the
students who had correctly answered the question would be entitled to 4
marks each.
32. As can be seen from the facts of the Kanpur University (supra), this
was a case wherein the students, who had answered the question, were given
the benefit of the full marks, in view of the fact that there was negative
marking. We fail to see how this judgment is of any assistance to the
Petitioners herein, who are pleading that full marks for the dropped
questions should be given to the candidates [who have attempted the
question and who have wrongly attempted the question]. The reliance placed
on the judgment is therefore completely misconceived and misplaced. The
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is not a proposition for awarding
‘free marks’ to candidates in the examination who have wrongly attempted
the dropped questions.
33. It is pertinent to note that, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court
has observed that once the University was apprised of a defect in the answer
key, the appropriate course would have been for the University to exclude
the concerned question from the paper, with no marks being awarded to any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 11 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

student in respect thereof. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: -
“18. If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses,
it should compile under its own auspices a text book which should be
prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the Combined Pre-
Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is
the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in
the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come
forward for doing the job and forces and counterforces will wage a battle
on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the
State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not
be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which
is prescribed for the Test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system
should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key
answers furnished by the paper-setters. Thirdly, if English questions have
to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the
Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of
the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system
of ‘multiple choice objective-type test’, care must be taken to see that
questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That
kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the
correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer
is “yes” or “no”. That is why the questions have to be clear and
unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any
defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the
examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University
to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and
no marks assigned to it.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
34. In our considered opinion, the Respondents herein have, in fact,
adopted the recourse recommended by the Supreme Court by upholding that
the questions are out of the syllabus, and dropping the questions, whilst
marking the candidate on the basis of the correct questions and answers
thereto.
35. It is contended that inclusion of dropped questions in the examination
paper has acted to the disadvantage of the candidate who attempted the
questions and spent their valuable time answering the questions, and the
only manner of remedying this wrong, qua the Petitioners, is to give the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 12 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

candidates ‘free marks’ for the dropped questions.
36. We are unable to accept the said submission of the Petitioners as
illustrated by the score of the candidate at Roll No. 4. The candidate, in fact,
scored 5 out of 6, and yet by the application of the extrapolation method, he
scored even higher marks. In our considered opinion, the extrapolation
method followed by the Respondents is not arbitrary, as the Petitioners have
failed to satisfy us as to how the application of the method has acted to the
detriment of the candidates, who actually attempted it and scored on it.
36.1. In our considered opinion, it was also open to the Respondents to
have completely ignored the marks scored by the candidates for the dropped
question; however, the Respondents herein have not adopted such a recourse
and, in fact, given benefit to every candidate who attempted the dropped
question correctly and given him the benefit of the higher score, if
applicable.
A perusal of the marksheet shows that the candidate at Roll No. 135,
who answered the dropped question no. 74 in Part B, partly correct and
scored 20 marks out of 50, and 17 out of 47, and when his score is computed
by the extrapolation formula , which gives a score of 19.32, the Respondents
have taken into consideration the 20 marks and not 19.32 for determining
whether he has passed or failed. Thus, a candidate who answered a dropped
question correctly was granted the benefit of their efforts.
37. Notwithstanding our finding above that the method adopted by the
Respondents is fair and does not suffer from arbitrariness, we have
examined the actual scores of the Petitioners.
38. The relief which the Petitioners are seeking in this petition is that, if
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 13 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

they are granted full 6 marks [as ‘free marks’] for the dropped question no.
74 in Part B and full 3 marks [as ‘free marks’] for the dropped questions in
Part A, they will be able to score passing marks of 20 in both Part A and
Part B and proceed to Stage II.
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 have failed the Part B examination pertaining to
General English-Part B; each of these four individuals had attempted the
dropped question and was duly marked on their attempt. However, even
after giving them the benefit of the marks scored by them for their actual
attempt, they are unable to score the passing marks of 20. In these facts, we
fail to understand on what legal basis the Petitioners are claiming full marks
for a dropped question.
Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 have failed in the General Knowledge Part A
examination. The dropped questions have a total value of 3 marks, and
Petitioner No. 5 scored 1 out of 3; similarly, Petitioner No. 4 scored 0 out of
3. However, learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that both
Petitioner No. 4 and Petitioner No. 5 should be given full 3 marks for this
dropped question. Petitioner No. 5 has been given the benefit of this 1 mark,
but even with that benefit, he failed to score the passing marks in Part A. In
Kanpur University (supra), the students who approached the High Court
had correctly answered the questions and were therefore given the benefit of
full marks by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Petitioners herein
cannot seek any parity with the students in the aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court.
39. We see no equitable basis for this claim of the Petitioners for seeking
full marks for the dropped questions, which were either wrongly answered.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 14 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06

40. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
APRIL 24, 2026/ mt/aa
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5600/2026 Page 15 of 15
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
12:06