Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Neeraj Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through its Registrar General – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3547/2025 | CM APPL. 55528/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saurabh Trivedi
For the Respondents: Samar Singh Kachwaha, Shivangi Nanda, Kavita Vinayak, Yash Dadriwal
A challenge to the deletion of an examination question is considered academic and not adjudicated if the candidate fails to meet the qualifying cut-off even after granting the marks for the disputed question.
Headnote:(A) Examination Process - Answer Key - Deletion of questions - A challenge to the deletion of a question in a competitive examination is academic if the candidate would not have qualified for the next stage of the selection process even if the marks for the disputed question were granted. (Para 10, 11)
(B) Judicial Review - Expert Body - Courts generally exercise restraint in interfering with the decisions of expert examining bodies regarding the revision or deletion of questions unless manifest arbitrariness or procedural irregularity is established. (Para 8.6)
(C) Age Relaxation - Legal Basis - A candidate cannot seek age relaxation for subsequent examinations without demonstrating a valid legal basis or entitlement. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of a deleted question in the preliminary examination and whether he is entitled to age relaxation for the next examination.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
(ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by a candidate who applied in the selection process for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service [‘DHJS’] pursuant to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2024 [‘DHJSE-2024’], assailing the Notice dated 20.02.2025 [‘impugned Notice’] issued by the Respondent, whereby four questions, including Question Nos. 6, 22, 60 and 101 of Question Paper Booklet Series ‘C’, were deleted from the Preliminary Examination on the ground that they were ambiguous, and the answers to four other questions i.e., Question Nos. 77, 82, 102, 113 of Question Paper Booklet Series ‘C’ were revised.
2. We may note at the outset that though the reliefs encompass the deletion of the said four questions and revision of separate four questions, during arguments the Petitioner has confined his challenge to deletion of Question No. 60 only.
3. Pursuant to the impugned Notice, the maximum marks of the Preliminary Examination were reduced from 150 to 146. The revised minimum qualifying marks for the General Category became 73 marks [50% of the maximum marks i.e., 146]. The Petitioner scored 75.75 marks. Respondent states that the cut-off for the candidates who qualified for a Mains (Written) Examination was fixed at 77 marks. Respondent contends that even if the Petitioner’s submission for Question No. 60 is considered, it would add only 1 mark which would take his total to 76.75 marks and the same would fall short off the cut-off of 77 marks. Respondent has contended that therefore the Petitioner has no cause to pursue this petition.
4. Also, this petition was filed on 12.03.2025. The interim relief was denied by the Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 and the interim application stood dismissed. Respondent states that the selection in pursuance to DHJSE-2024 is complete and appointments have also been made. Respondent states that nothing survives for consideration in this petition as no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. To this, the Petitioner contends that if it succeeds in this petition, the Court may consider granting the Petitioner limited relief of age relaxation to participate in the next upcoming DHJS Examination. The Petitioner states that, otherwise, he has crossed the maximum permissible age limit for appearing in the next exam.
5. The aforesaid facts have been noted to record that the limited relief that the Petitioner is now pressing for is age relaxation for appearing in the next examination for DHJS.
FACTS
6. Facts relevant to adjudicate the present writ petition are as follows:
6.1 On 27.12.2024, the High Court issued a public notice inviting online applications for recruitment to 16 vacancies (14 existing and 2 anticipated) in the DHJS through a three-stage selection process comprising the Preliminary Examination, Mains (Written) Examination and Viva Voce. The Petitioner applied pursuant to the said notification, his application was accepted and an Admit Card was issued to him.
6.2 On 02.02.2025, the Preliminary Examination was conducted. The Petitioner appeared in the examination and was allotted Question Paper Booklet Series ‘C’.
6.3 On 06.02.2025, the Respondent published the Model Answer Keys for Series A, B, C and D of the said Preliminary Examination and invited objections from candidates up to 5:30 PM on 09.02.2025.
6.4 After considering the objections received, the Respondent issued the impugned Notice dated 20.02.2025, whereby Question Nos. 6, 22, 60 and 101 of Booklet ‘C’ were treated as ambiguous and hence deleted, while the answers to Questions Nos. 77, 82, 102 and 113 were revised. Consequently, as noted above, the maximum marks for the Preliminary Examination were reduced from 150 to 146, and the revised qualifying marks for the General Category were fixed at 73 marks (50% of 146).
6.5 One of the deleted questions was Question No. 60 of Booklet ‘C’, concerning the nature and evide
