Courts need not adjudicate academic answer-key challenges that cannot alter a candidate’s qualification.

The Petitioner applied for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2024 (“DHJSE-2024”) and appeared in the Preliminary Examination conducted on 2 February 2025, in which he was allotted Booklet Series ‘C’.

After inviting objections to the model answer keys, the Respondent issued a Notice dated 20 February 2025 deleting Questions 6, 22, 60 and 101 of Series ‘C’ as ambiguous and revising the answers to Questions 77, 82, 102 and 113.

Question No. 60 concerned the evidentiary use of a statement allegedly made under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the original answer key treated Option (2) as correct.

Following deletion of the four questions, the maximum marks were reduced from 150 to 146 and the qualifying marks for the General Category were fixed at 73.

The Petitioner secured 75.75 marks, but the cut-off for the Mains Examination was 77 marks, and he was not shortlisted.

The writ petition challenged the deletion and revision of questions, but during arguments the Petitioner confined his challenge principally to Question No. 60.

By the time of hearing, the DHJSE-2024 selection process had been completed and appointments had been made. The Petitioner consequently sought, as limited relief, one-time age relaxation to participate in the next DHJS Examination.

Whether the deletion of Question No. 60 from the Preliminary Examination on the ground of ambiguity was liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to one-time age relaxation to appear in the next Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination.

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning examination answer keys and decisions of expert examining bodies. It recognised that courts ordinarily exercise restraint and interfere only where the decision is demonstrably erroneous, arbitrary, mala fide, procedurally irregular or contrary to law.

The Court considered the principles referred to in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, and Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81, concerning interference with palpably or demonstrably incorrect answer keys; Secretary (Health) v. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282, regarding expert consideration in alteration of answer keys; and Om Prakash Verma v. National Testing Agency, W.P.(C) No. 11380/2023, concerning judicial review in appropriate cases involving erroneous answer keys.

The Petitioner relied on Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 394, for the proposition that a statement relating to an inquest could be used as a previous statement to corroborate or contradict its maker at trial.

It also noted the contrary restraint-based authorities relied upon by the Respondent, including Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1670, Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309, and Kushagra Mittal Minor v. National Testing Agency, 2026:DHC:6822-DB.

The Court held that the challenge to Question No. 60 was academic in relation to the Petitioner’s result. Even if the question had been restored and the Petitioner awarded the additional one mark claimed by him, his score would have increased only to 76.75, remaining below the cut-off of 77 marks.

Therefore, interference concerning Question No. 60 could not have enabled the Petitioner to qualify for the Mains Examination.

Further, no other candidate had challenged the deletion, and the DHJSE-2024 selection and appointment process had been completed.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to adjudicate the rival submissions on whether Question No. 60 and its original answer were legally correct or ambiguous.

The Court also found no legal basis for granting age relaxation merely because the Petitioner’s challenge had become ineffective or because an interim order in unrelated Uttar Pradesh judicial-service proceedings had permitted another candidate to appear pending litigation.

It declined to examine the correctness of the deletion of Question No. 60 because such determination would not affect the Petitioner’s eligibility for the Mains Examination and the selection process had already concluded.

The prayer for one-time age relaxation to appear in the next DHJS Examination was rejected for want of any legal basis.

Pending applications were disposed of.