Government Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Regular Pay-Scale to Employees Appointed on Sanctioned Posts: Supreme Court Extends Benefit to Special Recruitment Drive Employees Presumption Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act Is Not Automatic: Supreme Court Holds That Dowry Death Allegations Must Be Substantiated with Evidence Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Judicial Pay Revisions Demand for Dowry, in Any Form, is Unlawful and Condemnable: Supreme Court Affirms Guilt but Grants Relief Considering Passage of Time Baseless Accusations Destroy Marital Trust - False Allegations of Infidelity and Dowry Demand Amount to Mental Cruelty: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Decree Payment for Use of Goodwill is Not Illegal or Against Public Policy: Delhi High Court CIVIL BREACH CANNOT BE CRIMINALIZED: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN LOAN DISPUTE Rigours of Section 45 PMLA Cannot Eclipse Article 21’s Guarantee of Liberty When Trial Delays Exceed Reasonable Limits: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Bank Chairman Seniority for Promotion Must Be Based on Feeder Category, Not Initial Appointment as Police Constable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Temporary Employment Does Not Disqualify Wife From Claiming Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court Right to Default Bail is a Fundamental Right; Cannot be Denied Due to Procedural Lapses:  Uttarakhand High Court Fraud Must Be Pleaded and Proved, Mere Allegation Insufficient: Telangana High Court Exclusion Without Justification Is Arbitrary: Tripura High Court Orders Equal Allowances for Jail Warders on Par with Police Personnel Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Jail Murder Case, Citing Insufficient Evidence of Conspiracy Patna High Court Upholds Exclusion of B.Tech Holders from Junior Engineer (Civil) Post, Dismisses Challenge to Bihar Recruitment Rules Matrimonial Dispute No Ground to Quash FIR If Prima Facie Case Exists: Madhya Pradesh High Court Notice of Dishonor is Non-Negotiable: High Court Dismisses Bank’s Recovery Suit for Procedural Lapse Madras High Court Dismisses ₹1842 Crores Recovery Claim by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation as Time-Barred and Unsubstantiated Entertainment Tax Must Be Refunded on Unsold Tickets – High Court of Kerala Mere Non-Return of Money and Quarrel Does Not Constitute Abetment to Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Karnataka High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Applies – Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned Without Evidence of Perversity: Gujarat High Court Consent Based on Deception is No Consent at All:  Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for Discharge in False Promise of Marriage Case Employer’s Failure to Provide Records Cannot Deny Pension Entitlement: Calcutta High Court Orders PF Authorities to Consider Service Period for Pension Calculation Murder Conviction Set Aside as 'Sudden Quarrel'—Bombay High Court Modifies Sentence to Culpable Homicide" No Title, No Injunction: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Baptist Church Land Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC Protects Husband from Rape Charges: Supreme Court Quashes FIR After Marriage Found to be Consensual Mere Presence in a Government Office Does Not Mean Incident Occurred in Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SCST A Typographical Error Cannot Alter Substantive Rights – Corrigendum Relates Back to the Original Notification: Rajasthan High Court Partition Suit Filed in 1958 Formally Closed After 66 Years: Andhra Pradesh High Court Bombay HC Declares Restrictive E-Filing Rules Unconstitutional; Ensures Taxpayers Can Claim Section 87A Rebate Delay in Trial Cannot Be an Excuse for Endless Incarceration: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NIA Case NHRC Orders Are Not Mere Recommendations—They Are Binding: Delhi High Court Directs Government to Pay Compensation in Alleged Fake Encounter Case Once an FIR is Registered and Investigated, a Second FIR for the Same Incident is Impermissible: Gujrat High Court Applies T.T. Antony Doctrine Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Sufficient For Conviction: Karnataka High Court Acquits HAL Official In Bribery Case PROSECUTION WITHOUT SANCTION IS VOID: KERALA HIGH COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RETIRED HEADMISTRESS High Court Has Power to Compound Offences Even at Revisional Stage: Madras HC in Section 138 NI Act Case Confessional Statement Leading to Recovery of Victim's Body Corroborates Circumstantial Evidence: Patna High Court Upheld Conviction in Rape and Murder Case GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION Foreign Conviction Does Not Shield Accused from Indian Prosecution: Uttarakhand High Court Denies Bail in Bitcoin Money Laundering 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