Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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

Similar News