Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks

“Right to Re-Evaluation Is Not Inherent, Especially Where Expressly Barred by Rules”, In a significant verdict reinforcing judicial restraint in academic matters, the Delhi High Court on 6 February 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by a Delhi Judicial Services Examination (Mains) 2023 candidate who alleged arbitrary reduction of twenty marks after initial evaluation. Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that courts cannot “substitute their own assessment for that of expert examiners”, and found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention.

The petitioner, who stood at Rank No. 45 in the final result and missed selection by a narrow margin, had approached the High Court alleging “interpolation” in her Paper-I answer script after obtaining copies under the RTI Act. She claimed that her marks in two subjective questions had been reduced from 25 to 15 and from 30 to 20, altering her total from 191 to 169, without any explanation or procedural justification.

Challenging the revision of marks, she argued that once marks are recorded in figures and words on the cover sheet of the answer script, the examiner becomes functus officio and loses authority to revise them. However, the High Court emphatically rejected this contention, observing that:

“It is open to the examiner to change and/or modify the marks awarded at first blush to an examinee… provided the revision is done before furnishing of the answer sheet to the examination body.”

Placing reliance on Nirmala Singh v. High Court of Delhi, the Court reaffirmed that marks do not attain finality merely upon being written on the front page, so long as they have not been submitted to the examining authority. The Bench made it clear that evaluation is an ongoing academic process, and minor alterations—whether beneficial or adverse—are within the examiner’s legitimate discretion.

“Courts Cannot Second-Guess an Examiner’s Mind in Subjective Assessments”: Judicial Review Limited to Cases of Proven Illegality or Fraud

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that judicial review in examination matters is of limited scope, and cannot be invoked merely to contest the outcome of academic judgment. Quoting extensively from Supreme Court precedent, including Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Bench held:

“Any attempt by the Court to reassess subjective answers would amount to substituting one subjective opinion with another, a course of action impermissible in law.”

The petitioner’s claim that the reduction lacked justification or markings in the answer script was rejected as speculative. The Court found that no mala fides, bias, or extraneous influence had been pleaded or proved, which was essential for any constitutional intervention.

“The petitioner’s assertion that the reduction was effected only to lower her aggregate remains conjectural and unsupported by material evidence.”

While noting the genuineness of the petitioner’s grievance, the Court drew a clear distinction between procedural irregularity and academic discretion, cautioning that:

“Sympathy cannot govern the examination process. While individual grievances may arise, redressal must be balanced against the larger imperative of preserving fairness, stability, and integrity of the selection system.”

“There Shall Be No Re-Evaluation—No Request For Re-Evaluation Shall Be Entertained”: Rule 15 of DJSE Rules Invoked to Bar Judicial Intervention

The Court emphasized that the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, specifically bar any re-evaluation of answer sheets, and such statutory prohibition must be respected. Citing the clear language of the Appendix to Rule 15, the judgment stated:

“There shall be no re-evaluation of answer sheets… No request for re-evaluation shall be entertained and the same shall be liable to be rejected without any notice to the candidates.”

Reiterating the constitutional limitation in the face of express statutory prohibition, the Court held that no right to re-evaluation exists unless granted by statute, and courts may intervene only in “rare and exceptional cases involving demonstrable material error.”

Since the petitioner neither challenged the validity of the rule nor proved any material irregularity, her claim was found to be legally untenable.

“Settled Appointments Cannot Be Unsettled Merely Due to Individual Discontent—Equitable Relief Must Yield to Systemic Stability”

The Court also weighed the consequences of unsettling concluded appointments, noting that 51 out of 53 selected candidates had already joined service. Respondent No. 2, the last selected candidate, and Respondent No. 3, the first waitlisted candidate (who left the Haryana Judiciary to join DJS), had not been alleged to have acted fraudulently or in collusion.

“Appointments made in accordance with law ought not to be unsettled, particularly where appointees have altered their positions irreversibly.”

The Bench underscored the cascading effect of such interference and cautioned that re-evaluating one candidate’s script could trigger a chain reaction, disturbing parity, seniority, and the legitimacy of the overall process:

“Such uncertainty in public appointments is antithetical to the principles of fairness, administrative stability and predictability.”

The Court also invoked the doctrine of estoppel, holding that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the rules—including the bar on re-evaluation—could not challenge the outcome post-failure.

“Judicial Review Ends Where Examiner’s Autonomy Begins”: Court Dismisses Writ Petition for Lack of Merits

Finding no arbitrariness, mala fide, or procedural impropriety, and citing the express statutory bar on re-evaluation, the High Court concluded:

“Directing re-evaluation in the absence of any substantiated allegation of mala fide or material illegality would risk causing manifest injustice to other candidates who have been duly selected.”

The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court declaring that:

“There exists no justification to restore the alleged original marks or to direct re-evaluation of the impugned answers, having due regard to the autonomy of the examiner and the settled limits of judicial review.”

No order as to costs was made.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2026