Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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