Extrapolation method for evaluating out-of-syllabus questions is valid and does not necessitate awarding "free marks."

The Petitioners, Group-C employees (Chauffeurs, Court Attendants, etc.) of the Delhi High Court, appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2023 for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer.

The examination (Stage I) consisted of Part A (General Knowledge) and Part B (General English), each carrying 50 marks with a minimum qualifying threshold of 40% (20 marks) per part.

Following the exam, it was discovered that three questions in Part A and one question in Part B were out of syllabus; these were subsequently dropped via a memorandum dated 28.05.2025.

To finalize results, the Respondents adopted an "extrapolation method," proportionately redistributing the marks of dropped questions among valid questions to maintain a 50-mark scale, while also granting candidates the higher of their extrapolated score or their original score (including any marks earned on the dropped questions).

The Petitioners failed to meet the minimum benchmark and challenged the methodology, seeking the award of "free marks" for all dropped questions.

1. Whether the "extrapolation method" adopted by the Respondents for dealing with out-of-syllabus questions was arbitrary or discriminatory.

2. Whether the court is mandated to award "free marks" to all candidates for questions declared out of syllabus based on the precedent in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta.

The Court applied the principles of fair evaluation in competitive examinations and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It scrutinized the precedent of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309, which held that if a key answer is defective or a question is ambiguous, the appropriate course for a University is to exclude the suspect question and assign no marks to it, rather than awarding marks for incorrect answers.

The Court also utilized mathematical principles of "proportionate re-distribution" (extrapolation) to ensure the weightage of valid questions is increased uniformly to maintain the original maximum marks and qualifying thresholds.

The Court found the extrapolation method to be mathematically accurate and fair, as it proportionately enhanced the value of correct answers to valid questions, thereby maintaining the standard 20-mark cut-off.

The Court rejected the Petitioners' interpretation of Kanpur University, noting that the Supreme Court in that case actually recommended excluding suspect questions entirely.

It observed that the Respondents' dual-calculation approach—awarding the higher of the extrapolated score or the score including correctly answered dropped questions—actually benefited candidates by rewarding both general performance and specific effort on dropped items.

The Court scrutinized the Petitioners' individual marks and found that even if the benefit of their actual attempts on dropped questions was included, they still failed to reach the passing marks; thus, their demand for "free marks" lacked both legal and equitable basis.

The Petitioners' claim for "free marks" was dismissed as it would unfairly benefit those who answered incorrectly or not at all, contradicting the principle of merit.

The court answered the issues in the negative, finding no merit in the challenge to the Memorandum dated 28.02.2026. The writ petition was dismissed.