The scope of judicial review in challenging examination answer keys and the need for demonstrable error beyond any vestige of doubt to interfere with the examining body's decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions impugning the final answer keys of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, which was declared after considering the objections raised by various candidates. According to the petitioners, answers to certain questions are not the appropriate answers and therefore, evaluation of the answer sheets is flawed.

2. The petitioners have been unsuccessful in being shortlisted to appear for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination as the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination fall short of the specified threshold. The petitioners state that if they are awarded the marks in respect of certain questions, which they claim were the most appropriate answers but were evaluated otherwise, they would clear the threshold of marks necessary to be eligible to appear for the main examination. The petitioners also claim that certain questions are erroneous and therefore, all candidates must be granted marks for the same.

3. The petitioners impugn the list of shortlisted candidates and pray that the same be modified on the basis of re-evaluation of the answer key. The final answer keys for the ‘Question Paper Booklet Series A-D’ – the subject matter of challenge in these cases – is hereafter referred to as ‘the impugned answer key’. The result of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination is hereafter referred to as ‘the impugned result’ and the list of shortlisted candidates that are provisionally admitted to the Delhi Judicial Services Mains Examination (Written) is hereafter referred to as ‘the impugned list’.

Factual Context

4. On 23.02.2022, a notification concerning the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2022 was issued by the Registrar General, Delhi High Court. In terms of the said notification, 124 numbers of vacancies in the Delhi Judicial Service were required to be filled. Further, the date of commencement for filling the online application form for the said examination was stipulated as 28.02.2022 and the last date was stipulated as 20.03.2022.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination (hereafter ‘the DJS Preliminary Examination’). And, on 24.04.2022, the petitioners appeared for the DJS Preliminary Examination and were assigned the respective question booklets.

6. On 27.04.2022, by way of a notice issued by the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, the Model Answer Keys to ‘Question Paper Booklet Series A-D’ were released. Further, in terms of the said notice, objections regarding the answers mentioned in the Model Answer Keys were also invited from candidates, who had appeared for the DJS Preliminary Examination, within a period of three days from the date of the said notice, that is, by 17:00 hours on 30.04.2022. The said notice further stipulated that “Objections received thereafter shall not be entertained. Any representation regarding objections received by a mode other than online mode will not be entertained”.

7. Mr Vivek Kumar Yadav [the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8284/2022] contends that he had furnished his objections to the Model Answer Key to Question Booklet Series ‘C’. However, the same was not considered. He contends that the answer key in respect of Question nos. 2, 44, 138,157 and 198, are erroneous. He further states that in respect of Question No. 193, there are two correct answers including the one mentioned in the impugned answer key and therefore, all candidates must be awarded marks in respect of the said question.

8. Mr Unnat Parasher [the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8345/2022] states that he had furnished his objections to the answer key in respect of Question nos. 25, 180, 194 of the Question Booklet Series ‘C’. However, his objections were not accepted. He also claims that his answers to the questions are the correct ones and therefore, he has been unjustifiably deprived of the marks in respect of the said questions.

9. Mr. Karan Goyal [the petitioner in W.P. (C) 85