Delhi High Court: In a petition filed to assail the correctness of the answer furnished by the respondent, the Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Amit Bansal, JJ., opined that a relief given to any candidate would inure ordinarily in favour of all candidates, and the objections once taken by any candidate attain universality. The purpose of affording candidates the opportunity to file objections was salutary, as it allowed the respondent to take corrective measures in the larger interest of candidates and move away from a possible unfair result. The Court opined that the correct answer related to Question 54, as framed by the respondent was option (1), as indicated and marked by the petitioner in her answer key. Since the present case brings to the fore, a palpable error, the Court directed the respondent to award the petitioner marks for Question 54.
Background
In the present case, the respondent took out a notification dated 06-11-2023 concerning the preliminary examination regarding the Delhi Judicial Services-2023 (‘DJS-2023’). The petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied and sat for the examination which was conducted on 17-12-2023. Once the examination was conducted, via notice dated 20-12-2023, a model answer key was made available by the respondents to the candidates who sat for the examination.
Thereafter, the candidates were called upon to lodge their objections till 23-12-2023, regarding the questions which formed part of Booklets A, B, C, and D. Subsequently, the respondents issued a notice dated 29-01-2024, whereby answers to ten questions were re-evaluated, but Question 54 in Booklet A was not re-evaluated, despite objections been received from other candidates.
Further, the results of those candidates who cleared the preliminary examination were shortlisted for Delhi Judicial Services Main Examination-2023 were published on 02-02-2024, and the cut-off marks fixed for the General Category was 160.75. The petitioner, who was a general category candidate was awarded 160.25 marks, and since the petitioner failed to make the cut-off marks, she filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that although it was not in dispute that the petitioner had not preferred objection related to Question 54 in Booklet A, but there were other candidates who had filed an objection regarding the same with the respondent. Therefore, the Court opined that a relief given to any candidate would inure ordinarily in favour of all candidates, and the objections once taken by any candidate attain universality. The purpose of affording candidates the opportunity to file objections was salutary, as it allowed the respondent to take corrective measures in the larger interest of candidates and move away from a possible unfair result.
Further, the Court noted that for Question 54, the petitioner had marked option (1) as the correct answer, whereas the answer key furnished to the candidates on 20-12-2023, it was indicated that the correct answer would be option (3). Thus, to ascertain the correct answer, Court relied on Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Delhi High Court 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1984, and Jitender Kumar v. General Finance Company Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 769, and opined that the correct answer related to Question 54, as framed by the respondent was option (1), as indicated and marked by the petitioner in her answer key. Since the present case brings to the fore, a palpable error, the Court directed the respondent to award the petitioner marks for Question 54.
Further, the Court clarified that the results of those candidates who had already qualified in the preliminary examination, by virtue of having marked option (3) as the correct option, would not be altered. However, all the candidates who had opted for option (1) as the correct answer to Question 54, would also be given the benefit of this judgment.
[Shruti Katiyar v. High Court of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1258, decided on 20-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Rajiv Shakdher
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Harsh Tikoo, Manish Kashyap and Prabhakar Roy, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Rayadurgam Bharat, Adhishwar Suri and Shashwat Kabi, Advocates.
