Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPA, AMIT MAHAJAN
Devyanshu Suryavanshi – Appellant
Versus
Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through the present Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners assail the correctness of the Order dated 30.05.2025 passed the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'], in O.A. Nos.1102/2025, 1750/2025, 1405/2025, 1408/2025 and 1814/2025, as well as the Orders dated 17.07.2025 and 11.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.1606/2025 and 1943/2025, respectively [hereinafter collectively referred to as 'Impugned Orders'].
2. By way of the Impugned Orders, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Applications (OAs) challenging the final results and answer keys of the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2024 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), holding that the alleged infirmities in the evaluation of the Tier-II examination, relating to grant of “bonus marks” for 22 questions and alteration of answers in the Final Answer Key released after declaration of results, stemmed from a conscious decision of the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) committee of the SSC and therefore, did not warrant judicial re-evaluation.
3. With the co
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
Judicial review of answer keys is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts unless errors are clearly demonstrable.
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
The court upheld the evaluation process of examination papers, stating that without statutory provision for re-evaluation, it cannot interfere unless a clear material error is demonstrated.
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in examination processes and the need for demonstrable errors to warrant intervention.
The court upheld the authority of the examination body, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention in academic matters unless clear errors are demonstrated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
