Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Multiple Correct Answers Per Question Contradicts Exam Scheme: Delhi High Court Directs Re-Evaluation of DJS Exam 2023 Prelims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision on March 20, 2024, the Delhi High Court has ordered a re-evaluation of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination 2023 (DJS Exam 2023) Preliminary Examination, ruling that accepting multiple correct answers for a single question is in contradiction to the examination’s scheme.

The primary legal issue revolved around the judicial review of the Revised Answer Key for the Preliminary Examination of the DJS Examination 2023. Petitioners, aspiring Delhi Judicial Service candidates, challenged the Model and Revised Answer Keys, pointing out errors and asserting inconsistencies.

The case stemmed from the release of the Revised Answer Key by the Delhi High Court, which modified answers to certain questions and declared two options as correct for some. This led to the petitioners failing to qualify, as their marks fell below the threshold.

The court firmly stated that each question in an objective-type examination should have only one correct answer, especially under a negative marking scheme. Accepting two correct answers for one question was held to be fundamentally against the exam’s evaluation structure. The Court asserted, “… accepting two correct answers for one question militates against the said scheme of evaluation.”

Judicial review of evaluation in exams is limited and intervention is warranted only in cases of palpable errors.

The decision to accept two answers for the same question was contrary to the scheme of the Preliminary Examination.

The court ordered the re-evaluation of the examinees based on the amended answer key and inclusion of additional qualifying candidates for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains (Written) Examination.

The Court’s directive to set aside parts of the Revised Answer Key that allowed multiple correct answers signifies a reinforcement of strict adherence to the established examination schemes. The judgement underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and accuracy in competitive examinations.

Date of Decision: 20th March 2024

Rishabh Duggal Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court

Latest Legal News