1 week ago
Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge Over Deleted Exam Question
A candidate took a test to qualify for a higher judicial service examination.
One question was removed because officials considered it ambiguous.
The candidate argued that the question should count and that this would add one mark to his score.
He had scored 75.75 marks, while the required score was 77.
Even with the extra mark, he would have scored only 76.75.
The Delhi High Court said this would still not allow him to take the next exam stage.
The candidate also asked for special permission to take a future exam after reaching the age limit.
The court rejected that request and dismissed the case without deciding whether question 60 was actually correct or ambiguous.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a candidate’s challenge to deleting question 60 from the 2024 Delhi Higher Judicial Service preliminary examination.
The candidate scored 75.75, below the 77-mark cut-off for the mains examination.
The candidate argued that restoring question 60 would add one mark and that labeling it ambiguous was unsupported.
The court said the candidate would still score only 76.75 and therefore would not qualify for the mains examination.
The court also rejected the candidate’s request for one-time age relaxation, finding no legal basis for it.
- Who
- An unnamed candidate, the Delhi High Court, and the examination authorities.
- What
- The court dismissed a challenge to the deletion of question 60 from the 2024 Delhi Higher Judicial Service preliminary examination and rejected an age-relaxation request.
- Where
- Delhi, before the Delhi High Court.
- When
- The challenged notice was issued on February 20, 2025; the judgment date is not stated.
- Why
- The court found that restoring the question would still leave the candidate below the 77-mark mains cut-off and that no legal basis for age relaxation had been shown.
Candidate’s Arguments
Examination Authorities’ and Court’s Position
Status of question 60
Candidate’s Arguments
The candidate argued that question 60 concerned the evidentiary value of a statement and that the original model answer had correctly identified option 2.
Examination Authorities’ and Court’s Position
The authorities said the examination committee reviewed objections and deleted the question after finding it ambiguous; the court did not rule on the question’s substantive correctness.
Whether the challenge could provide relief
Candidate’s Arguments
The candidate sought restoration of the question and argued that describing it as ambiguous was arbitrary because the objections did not allege that it was vague.
Examination Authorities’ and Court’s Position
The authorities argued that even an additional mark would raise the candidate’s score only to 76.75, below the 77-mark cut-off, so no effective relief could be granted.
Age relaxation
Candidate’s Arguments
The candidate alternatively sought a one-time relaxation of the maximum age limit so he could appear in the next examination.
Examination Authorities’ and Court’s Position
The court rejected the request because the candidate had not demonstrated a legal basis for granting such relaxation.
Key facts
- Examination
- 2024 Delhi Higher Judicial Service preliminary examination
- Challenged question
- Question number 60
- Candidate’s score
- 75.75 marks
- Mains cut-off
- 77 marks
- Potential revised score
- 76.75 marks if one mark were restored
- Court bench
- Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
- Notice challenged
- February 20, 2025 notice deleting four questions and revising answers to four others
Quotes
Delhi High Court bench
The bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora hearing the petition.
“Respondent has submitted that the cut-off marks were fixed at 77 and Petitioner scored only 75.75 marks in the preliminary examination, thus, even if the petitioner’s submission qua question No. 60 had been accepted it would have only led to addition of 1 mark, and the petitioner would still not have qualified for the mains (written) examination.”
indianexpress.com
“The petitioner has failed to show any legal basis for such a relief. We therefore reject this oral prayer made by the petitioner.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Tribunal Notices UPSC Over Eight Civil Services Exam Questions
Bombay High Court Upholds NEET Score, Imposes ₹25,000 Costs
Delhi High Court Rejects NEET-UG OMR Tampering Claims, Dismisses PIL
Court Quashes Haryana Panel's Late Interview Cutoff for Professors
Delhi High Court Allows JNU Admissions Despite Deprivation-Points Challenge
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Chief Justices for Four High Courts
