Delhi High Court: While hearing a batch of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution assailing the correctness of the orders dated 30-5-2025, 17-7-2025 and 11-8-2025 (‘impugned orders’) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal,* and Amit Mahajan, JJ., expressed concerns over the serious lapses in the administrative diligence of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in conduction of the for Combined Graduate Level Examination (‘CGLE’), 2024.
However, the Court noted that since the impugned orders suffered from no patent illegality or perversity, interreference with the same was not warranted and accordingly dismissed the petitions.
Background
The SSC had issued a notification delineating the examination schedule CGLE 2024 comprising of two stages, Tier I and Tier II.Pursuant to conduction of Tier I and Tier II phases of the examination, the SSC had declared the final result, published the list of shortlisted candidates and released the final answer key for the Tier II examination. Under the revised answer key, 9 questions from Paper I and 10 questions from Paper II of the Tier II examination were declared invalid. Further, grace marks were granted in 22 questions uniformly to all candidates.
Aggrieved thereby, the candidates had filed applications before the Tribunal that had been dismissed vide the impugned orders on the grounds that the Tribunal could not sit in appeal over decisions involving subjects such as mathematics, English or general knowledge.
Moot Point
Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to interfere with the final answer key and evaluation process of the CGLE 2024 in view of the settled principles governing the scope of judicial review in academic matters?
Analysis, Law and Decision
At the outset, the Court elucidated upon the scope of judicial review in academic matters and reiterated that the Courts or Tribunals, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution do not function as appellate bodies to reassess answer keys or the merits of academic judgements unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by patent illegality or arbitrariness.
The Court noted that in cases like Shivraj Sharma v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2589 and Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1144, the Courts have exercised judicial review over question setting and evaluation process of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), it has done so because Courts possess specialised expertise in that field and are thus competent to assess the correctness of questions and answers. However, in the instant case, the CGLE 2024 exam comprises of questions on mathematics, English, history, logical reasoning, chemistry and general science. The Court noted that since these are areas the Court does not possess the requisite technical or academic competence; the scope of judicial review was limited.
The Court further stated that the rationale articulated by the SSC for awarding marks uniformly in respect of incorrect/ambiguous/multiple correct answers’ questions cannot be rejected in its entirety. In an examination scheme involving negative marking, a discerning candidate may consciously refrain from attempting a doubtful or ambiguous question to avoid penal consequences, notwithstanding the time and effort invested. In such circumstances, distinguishing candidates who attempted the question and those who did not may itself result in inequity. The policy of extending benefit to all candidates, when a question is declared invalid for want of a unique correct answer, therefore rests on a discernible logic aimed at mitigating unintended prejudice. At the same time, while different examining bodies may legitimately adopt different corrective mechanisms, such a policy must remain an exception rather than the norm and cannot be invoked to mask systemic deficiencies in question-setting or evaluation.
The Court further commented on the administrative stewardship of the SSC in the conduct of the CGLE 2024. The Court opined that the uniform grant of grace marks in as many as 22 questions to all candidates, including those who had either not attempted the questions or had furnished incorrect answers, represents a serious deviation from the principles of competitive merit and procedural fairness.
The Court further noted that the requirement to revisit and revise expert opinion on such a scale underscores avoidable deficiency in both question-setting and evaluation. Recruitment examinations of this nature are not mere administrative exercises; they directly impact the careers of young aspirants and shape the integrity of public service. Consequently, the SSC is obliged to ensure that ambiguities are minimised and that moderation mechanisms do not inadvertently penalise candidates, who have made genuine effort, nor reward non-attempts, thereby safeguarding the level playing field that lies at the heart of competitive merit.
Thus, the Court opined that the SSC must adopt a more circumspect and systematic approach in the framing, vetting, and finalisation of question papers and answer keys. Institutionalising a clear and transparent policy for addressing ambiguities and objections will not only enhance the credibility of examinations but also significantly reduce avoidable litigation. The SSC must exercise greater academic rigor and administrative diligence in all future examinations, so as to prevent recurrence of the shortcomings evident in the present exercise.
Therefore, the Court held notwithstanding the concerns expressed over the administration of the CGLE exams the corrective measures ultimately adopted were founded on expert opinion and cannot be characterised as vitiated by patent illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the instant writ petitions.
[Devyanshu Suryavanshi v. Staff Selection Commission, W.P.(C) No. 8524 of 2025, decided on 5-2-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Gauhar Mirza, Aditya Bharat Manubarwala, Abiha Zaidi, Tanishka Grover, Pritam, Priyam Karma, K. K. Sharma, Harshit Agarwal, Arun Kumar Singh, Dhanajaya Kumar Tyagi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC, Himanshi Singh, Priya Khurana, Jagdish Chandra CGSC, Maanya Saxena, Siddharth Bajaj, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
