One extra mark still not enough: Delhi High Court rejects judicial exam candidate’s plea

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate's appeal against the deletion of a question from the 2024 Delhi Higher Judicial Service preliminary examination, stating that even if the question were reinstated, the candidate's score would still fall short of the written examination's cut-off mark. The bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also noted that no other candidate had contested the deletion of that particular question.

The petitioner had argued that if question No. 60 had been accepted, it would have only added 1 mark to his overall score, which would still not meet the required threshold for entry into the mains examination. The court observed that the petitioner's challenge was academic, as the decision to delete the question would not have helped him secure a place in the written exam.

The candidate had initially challenged a February 20, 2025 notice from the Delhi High Court, which had deleted four questions from the DHJS preliminary examination, citing ambiguity and revision of answers to other questions. However, the petitioner's arguments focused solely on the deletion of question number 60, which pertained to the evidentiary value of a statement under relevant legal provisions.

While some candidates had objected to the deleted question, no one claimed that it was vague, leading the court to conclude that the deletion was arbitrary and unsupported by the objections received. The respondent argued that the cut-off for the mains examination was fixed at 77 marks, and that even with the addition of one mark to the petitioner's score (raising it to 76.75), he would still not meet the requirement.

The court rejected the petitioner's request for a one-time age relaxation, stating that he had not provided a legal basis for such relief and that the decision to delete the question was within the expertise and discretion of the examination committee. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition without examining the merits of the challenged question.