Pro-rata evaluation for deleted questions and uniform deletion across all exam phases held consistent with equality principles.

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) conducted recruitment examinations for Primary Teachers (Post Codes 16/17 and 1/18) in four phases between September and October 2018.

After the fourth phase, DSSSB discovered that several questions were repeated across different phases.

Consequently, DSSSB issued notices to delete these repeated questions from evaluation and applied a "pro rata" marking method and a normalization formula to balance variations in difficulty levels.

Some candidates challenged the deletion and marking method (OA 612/2019), while others challenged the rejection of their objections to the Draft Answer Keys (OA 815/2019 & OA 2151/2019).

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside DSSSB’s notices, holding the pro rata method and the deletion of questions from Phase I (where they were first appearing) to be illogical.

CAT also directed a re-evaluation of answer key objections by experts.

The GNCTD filed these writ petitions against the CAT orders.

The Court primarily applied the principle of judicial restraint in academic/examination matters as established in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which discourages courts from re-evaluating answer sheets or questions.

It further relied on the precedent set in Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the Supreme Court upheld the "pro rata" method for deleted questions as a valid evaluation procedure.

The Court also applied Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution of India to ensure a uniform and non-discriminatory evaluation process for all candidates across multiple shifts.

The Court found that while CAT deemed deleting Phase I questions "illogical," such a selective deletion would actually cause discrimination.

If repeat questions were deleted only from later phases, candidates in Phase I would be evaluated on a different total number of questions than others, violating Articles 14 and 16.

To maintain a "level playing field," the same set of questions had to be excluded from evaluation across all four batches.

Regarding the pro rata marking method (calculating marks based on performance in remaining questions), the Court held it was a recognized mechanism supported by the Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and was not inherently illegal.

Regarding the answer key objections, the Court examined the expert opinions placed on affidavit and found them to be reasoned and supported by relevant texts.

The Court emphasized that since the recruitment process was closed and candidates had been serving for years, revisiting minor controversies regarding expert-verified answers was unwarranted.

The deletion of repeated questions from all phases was necessary to ensure uniformity and prevent discrimination.

The pro rata method for awarding marks against deleted questions is a valid and lawful objective mechanism.

In the presence of reasoned expert opinions, the Court would not interfere with the finality of the Answer Keys, especially after the appointments had been finalized.

The writ petitions were allowed with no orders as to costs.