The Court found that the answer keys to several questions were incorrect and directed the High Court to recompute the results using the correct answer keys.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

These writ petitions by law graduates aspiring to be judicial officers, question the correctness of the answer keys to some of the questions in the Delhi Judicial Services (Preliminary) Examinations ("DJS Preliminary Exams") held on 22nd September 2019.

2. Notice. Notice is accepted by learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

3. Given the urgency of the matter in light of the fact that the Delhi Judicial Services (Mains) Exam is to be held on 12th and 13th October 2019, these petitions have been heard finally today itself with the consent of the parties.

4. The Court straightway takes up for discussion the answer keys to 15 questions that have been challenged by these Petitioners. It must only be noticed at this stage that in a departure from the practice adopted earlier where before declaring the results of the DJS Preliminary Exams the answer keys would be published on the website of the Delhi High Court and objections invited, this time with a view to adhering to a deadline of completing the entire examination and selection process before the end of February 2020 as undertaken by the High Court before the Supreme Court of India in proceedings arising in Civil Appeal No.1867 of 2006 (Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Services Commission) the High Court dispensed with the publishing of the answer keys prior to the declaration of the result.

5. As it turned out the answer keys were ultimately published on 26th September 2019 and immediately upon noticing the answer keys to some of the questions the present petitions have been filed.

6. It must also be noticed that there are different series of questions for e.g. A, B, C and so on. Some questions are common to the different series. In other words the question numbers of the same question would be different in the different series.

7. For 13 of the 15 questions, the answer keys to which have been challenged, the Court has had the benefit of a chart prepared by learned counsel appearing for the High Court. The answer keys to the 2 further questions have been challenged in WP(C) 10757 of 2019 (Umesh v. Registrar General and Anr.) which would be discussed sequentially.

Question I

8. Question No.171 in Series "C" and Question No.73 in Series "D" the question reads as under:

""A" filed a suit against three defendants. Defendant No.1 alleged that there was no cause of action against him under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The Plaint is to be:

(1) Rejected in whole

(2) Rejected in part if cause of action is not joint and several

(3) Proceed with against all the defendants

(4) None of the above."

9. In terms of the answer key, the correct answer is (2) above whereas the Petitioners insist that it is (3) above.

10. Learned counsel for the High Court, place reliance on the judgments in Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 and Zubair Ul Abidin v. Sameena Abidin, (2014) 214 DLT 340.

11. Of the above, it is the decision in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society (supra) that is relevant to the issue at hand. There were two Defendants i.e. the Appellant as Defendant No.1 and "S" as Defendant No.2. The Appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The learned Single Judge of the High Court on the Original Side rejected the plaint in so far as the Appellant was concerned and directed that the suit would be proceeded with against "S" only. However, the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court which reversed the Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was held that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where the plaint fails to disclose cause of action vis-a-vis the particular Defendant who objects, it can be rejected in so far as it concerns that Defendant.

12