Judicial review in examination matters is limited; without allegations of mala fide or bias, courts cannot interfere with subjective evaluations or mark alterations prohibited by relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The present writ petition raises a grievance arising out of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination of 2023 [“DJSE” hereinafter] wherein the petitioner alleges unlawful interpolation and reduction of her marks at the final stage of evaluation. It is the petitioner’s case that a reduction of twenty marks in Paper-I of DJSE (Mains) (Written), 2023 [“Mains examination” hereinafter] examination was effected after the initial evaluation, resulting in her candidature being declared unsuccessful. The petitioner seeks restoration of the marks originally awarded and consequential revision of the Final Result of DJSE in accordance therewith.

FACTS

2. The facts of the present case fall within a limited scope. It is borne from the record that Respondent No. 1 issued a notification dated 06.11.2023 inviting applications for appointment to the Delhi Judicial Services [“DJS” hereinafter] notifying 53 vacancies (44 existing and 9 anticipated) with category-wise distribution of 34 General/Unreserved, 05 Scheduled Castes and 14 Scheduled Tribes vacancies. The notification clarified that the number of vacancies was subject to variation and that admission at all stages of the examination was provisional. The following is the break-up of vacancies for DJS for 2023:

3. In terms of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 [“Rules” hereinafter] the selection process comprises three stages: Preliminary Examination, Mains examination, and viva voce. To qualify the Mains examination, which comprises of four Papers, a candidate must secure a minimum of 35%marks in each paper and 45% in aggregate.

4. The Mains examination was conducted on 13.04.2024 and 14.04.2024. The results were declared on 07.01.2025, pursuant to which 153 candidates, including the petitioner, were shortlisted for the viva-voce. Thereafter, by notification dated 13.08.2025, 53 candidates were recommended for appointment. The final result was declared on 04.03.2025, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 12 of the wating list (Rank No. 45 overall) with a total of 605 marks. The last selected candidate in the same category, i.e., Respondent No. 2 herein, secured 615 marks, while Respondent No. 3, placed first on the waiting list, secured 612 marks.

5. Upon being declared unsuccessful, the petitioner sought copies of her answer scripts under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [“RTI Act” hereinafter] vide application dated 10.04.2025. The same were furnished to her in May2025.

6. On examining her answer script for Paper-I (Legal Knowledge and Language) [“Paper-I” hereinafter] the petitioner noticed certain apparent alterations in the marks awarded for Question Nos. 5 and 8, as well as corresponding changes in the tabulation of marks on the front page of the answer booklet.

7. Specifically, Question No. 5, marks initially awarded as 25 were overwritten and reduced to 15. Similarly, in Question No. 8, marks initially awarded as 30 were overwritten and altered to 20. These changes were mirrored in the tabulated total on the front she