Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
ARVIND AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5600/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankur Chhibber
For the Respondents: Chetan Lokur
The extrapolation method for redistributing marks from dropped/out-of-syllabus questions to valid questions in a competitive examination is fair and non-arbitrary, as it maintains the cut-off threshold and ensures equality among candidates.
Headnote:(A) Competitive Examinations - Out-of-Syllabus Questions - Extrapolation Method - The use of an extrapolation method to proportionately redistribute marks from dropped questions to valid questions is a fair and non-arbitrary practice that maintains the standard cut-off threshold and ensures equality among candidates. (Para 23, 26, 36)
(B) Award of Marks - 'Free Marks' - Candidates are not entitled to 'free marks' for dropped questions, particularly when they have wrongly attempted them, as there is no equitable or legal basis for such a claim in the absence of negative marking or incorrect answer keys. (Para 32, 38, 39)
Issues: Whether the extrapolation method adopted by the Respondents for calculating marks after dropping out-of-syllabus questions was arbitrary and whether the Petitioners were entitled to 'free marks'.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding out-of-syllabus questions and the adoption of the extrapolation method for marking. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments on the fairness of extrapolation versus the demand for 'free marks'. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. validity and mathematical fairness of the extrapolation method in maintaining cut-off thresholds. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. application of the extrapolation method to the general english paper. (Para 30) |
| 5. distinguishing the 'free marks' precedent from cases involving negative marking. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. rejection of the claim for 'free marks' and dismissal of the petition. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
(ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for quashing of the Memorandum dated 28.02.2026 and the final roll number-wise result of the Junior Judicial Assistant [‘JJA’]/Restorer Departmental Examination-2023.
2. The Petitioners herein joined the services as a Chauffer, Court Attendant, etc., i.e., the Group-C posts in the establishment of the High Court of Delhi on various dates ranging from 2017- 2020.
3. The Examination Cell of this Court vide circular dated 20.12.2023 invited applications from eligible officials for filling up 71 posts of JJA/Restorer under the 25% quota to be filled up by the Departmental Competitive Examination. The Petitioners herein met the requisite eligibility criteria applied under the aforesaid posts of JJA/Restorers, respectively. The circular prescribed a scheme of the examination depicting that there are three stages to the LDCE process, namely Stage I, Stage II and Stage III. As per the Stage I of the examination comprises a written test of a maximum of one hundred marks, consisting of two Parts, i.e., Part A and Part B, each carrying 50 marks. Part A of the written examination was to have questions to test candidates’ knowledge of General Knowledge and Current Affairs, and Part B was for testing the General English of the candidates. Candidates were mandated to score a minimum of 20 marks for Part A and Part B each. The candidates who scored a minimum of twenty marks in Part A and 20 marks in Part B of Stage I would be permitted to partake in the subsequent Stage.
4. Vide circular dated 09.10.2024, the examination branch notified that the Stage I [written test] was to be conducted on 27.10.2024.
5. During the said written test, a certain number of questions were out of the syllabus. Pertinently, question nos. 42, 44 and 46 of Part A pertained to logical reasoning, whereas Part A of the Stage I was supposed to be General Knowledge, and question no.74 of Part B was to translate a passage from Hindi to English, whereas Part B was supposed to be General English.
6. Representations were submitted by the candidates regarding the inclusion of out-of-syllabus questions, which were duly acknowledged by the Competent Authority. Consequently, vide memorandum dated 28.05.2025, the said questions were declared to be out of the syllabus.
7. The Respondents adopted an extrapolation method for finalising the results of the candidates. The Petitioners have been declared as ‘Fail’ only for the reason that they did not meet the minimum benchmark of 40% of marks in either part of the examination in view of the method adopted. It is stated that the reason for such failure was that for a set of candidates, the total score, including that of the dropped/deleted questions, was considered, and for a set of candidates, the interpolated marks were taken into account whilst ascertaining the eligibility. This methodology led to the fact that a set of candidates was assessed and declared passed on the basis of dropped/deleted questions. The said methodology of dealing with the scenario was neither contemplated in the rules of the examination nor was this notified to the candidates before declar
