1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the framing of a question paper for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) Preliminary Examination, 2014 by the first respondent, the Delhi High Court, as being contrary to the law laid down in the case of Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General High Court of Delhi, in W.P.(C). No. 449/2012.

2. The writ petitioner is a law graduate who, in accordance with an advertisement dated 18.2.2014 for recruitment to the Delhi Judicial Service (“DJS”), took the exam held on 1.6.2014. 80 vacancies were advertised, of which 55 were for the General Category of candidates. The exam was to comprise of three parts, the preliminary exam, the main exam and the interview, and a candidate was required to secure a minimum of 60%, or 120 marks out of 200, and obtain a rank within ten times the number of vacancies advertised (“the requisite number”), to be eligible for the main exam after the preliminary exam. An answer key was published by a public notice on 9.6.2014 and objections were invited to the proposed answers from the candidates, before 23.6.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner conveyed his objections by speed post on 17.6.2014 against 11 answers in the answer key. The respondent accepted 3 of the 87 objections by its public notice of 2.7.2014. Of those accepted, one had been raised by the petitioner. On 8.7.2014, the results of the exam were declared and the petitioner was awarded 126.75 marks (which was more than the 60% minimum), while the cut-off marks fixed were 128.75. Out of a total 9033 candidates in the examination, the petitioner secured the 6196th position. Despite having secured the 60% minimum, the petitioner did not find a place within the requisite number.

3. The petitioner argues that he would have cleared the second criterion as well, had the respondent framed the questions in the question paper without any ambiguity. Given that a candidate has only about 45 seconds to select the correct answer to each question, he argues that there should be no ambiguity between the choices of possible answers that are provided, to admit of the possibility of more than one “correct” answer. The petitioner states that the responses to the objections raised in respect of questions 34, 69, 82, 84, 121, 130, 167, 168 were not satisfactory. The objections raised are that the answers in the key, to Questions 34, 69, 121, 130 are incorrect, while Questions 84, 167, 168, 82 admit of two possible correct answers. The petitioner’s case is that if these answers were correctly set and the ambiguous questions are cancelled, then the petitioner would make it to the list within the requisite number. Relying upon a decision of this Court in Gunjan Sinha Jain v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, delivered on 9.4.2012 in W.P.(C) 449/2012, it is argued that the Delhi High Court was directed to ensure that questions be clear and must provide all necessary information to arrive at the appropriate answer; questions which could have doubtful or debatable answers were not to be allowed. On this basis, the petitioner argues that the respondent should be directed to make the necessary corrections in the question paper, to cancel the questions which admit of two possible answers, and then re-evaluate the candidates and redraw the merit list for the DJS exam. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to reschedule the main examination of the DJS form the scheduled dates of 11-12 October 2014, so as to provide sufficient time for candidates who may become entitled to appear in the exam.

4. This Court, when it was seized of this matter, also heard and subsequently dismissed W.P. (C) 4974/2014, with this order:

“After some hearing, learned counsel sought liberty to withdraw the petition in view of the fact that the issues are covered in W.P.(C.)No.4976/2014. Dismissed as withdrawn.”

5. In this writ petition i.e W.P. (C) no. 4976/2014, this Court issu