JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The Delhi Higher Judicial Service Preliminary Examination was held on 20.05.2018; the Delhi High Court establishment (hereafter "DHC") on 05.06.2018 declared the result. Before that, it published the model answer key on 22.05.2018 and invited objections/comments. Based on these, the revised model key was published on 04.06.2018; based on it, the results were compiled and declared. The petitioner seeks quashing the list of shortlisted candidates notified by DHC on 28.08.2018 and further enjoin it to issue a revised Roll number wise result as well as the (fresh) list of the qualified candidates in consonance with the modified answer key, and the terms of its advertisement dated 28.12.2017.

2. The DHC on 28.11.2017, publicly advertised 11 vacancies in the cadre of Delhi Higher Judicial Services ("DHJS"); besides containing essential particulars relating to educational qualifications and experience, the advertisements described the three-stage selection process for filling up the post as follows:

(i) Delhi Higher Judicial Service Preliminary Examination (objective type with 25% negative marking) for selection to the main examination; and

(ii) Delhi Higher Judicial Service Main Examination (Descriptive) for selection of candidates for calling for viva voce.

The advertisement also described the syllabus for the two tests as follows:

3. As stated earlier, the preliminary test was held on 17.05.2018; the model key was published on 22.05.2018. The candidates were provided the opportunity to object to the model answers; many did. The revised answer key was issued on 04.06.2018. Based on this revised answer key, the results of the preliminary test were compiled and published. The petitioner, a candidate, claims to be aggrieved by what he claims are wrong or erroneous questions and wrong answers based on which, the results were declared. According to the petitioner, the roll number wise results so declared of the exam conducted on 20.05.2018 and the list of shortlisted candidates published who are enabled to appear in the main examination, are utterly arbitrary; he seeks a direction that the select list be quashed.

4. The petitioner argues that the deletion of five (05) questions "without assigning any reason compounded by arbitrarily awarding one (01) mark each there against to every candidate who appeared in the Preliminary Examination as opposed to only to those who had attempted those purportedly ambiguous questions." It is argued that this action is contrary to the decision in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg, (2005) 13 SCC 749.

5. The petitioner elaborates on the submissions, with specific reference to the "wrong questions" and wrong options provided in the answer keys, in support of his argument that the process is arbitrary. The questions, answer keys and the petitioner's arguments are set out below. The first question objected to is No.58, which is as follows (with the answer key)

"'Question no.58. A Professor employed with an unaided private college is sexually harassed. She filed a writ petition