The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate’s petition challenging the cancellation of a question in the 2024 Delhi Higher Judicial Service preliminary examination, ruling that restoring the question would not alter the candidate’s non-qualifying status for the mains examination.
Cutoff Threshold Unmet
A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the legal challenge was academic regarding the candidate’s final outcome. The court noted that the qualifying threshold for the mains written examination was fixed at 77 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured 75.75 marks. Restoring question number 60 and awarding one additional mark would raise the candidate’s score to 76.75, which still falls short of the required cutoff.
The court further highlighted that no other candidate who appeared for the preliminary test had approached the court to challenge the deletion of the question.
Discretion of Expert Body Upheld
The bench emphasized that the examination committee, operating as an expert administrative entity, holds the authority to revise or remove questions identified as ambiguous following a thorough evaluation of post-examination objections. The court stated that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrary conduct, procedural defects, or bad faith in the administrative decision-making process.
In addition, the court turned down an oral prayer from the petitioner seeking a one-time age relaxation to appear in the subsequent examination cycle. The bench noted that the applicant failed to establish any statutory or legal foundation to justify granting age relief.
Background of the Petition
The petition originated from a February 20, 2025 notification issued by the Delhi High Court administration. The notice announced the deletion of four preliminary examination questions on grounds of ambiguity and updated the answer keys for four other questions.
Although the petitioner initially contested all eight modifications, oral arguments were limited strictly to the removal of question number 60. The question related to the evidentiary value of statements under specific statutory provisions. The petitioner pointed out that the provisional model answer key had designated option two as correct, arguing that only eight candidates out of thousands had raised objections to the question, with none claiming it was vague.
Clarifying that it did not evaluate the technical correctness or legal merits of question number 60 itself, the High Court formally dismissed the petition.
