Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation 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