Re-Evaluation Of Subjective Answers Would Disrupt Settled Selections: Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere In Delhi Judicial Services Examination 2023
Holding that directing re-evaluation of subjective examination answers would necessarily extend to all similarly placed candidates and unsettle concluded appointments, the High Court declined interference, observing that such judicial intervention would undermine administrative stability and predictability.
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
While declining to interfere in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2023, the Delhi High Court has held that any judicial direction to re-evaluate subjective examination answers would require extending the same exercise to all similarly situated candidates to maintain parity, thereby unsettling concluded selections and disturbing inter se seniority.
The Court observed that such uncertainty in public appointments is inconsistent with fairness, administrative stability and predictability, and that courts must therefore accord due latitude to examining authorities in academic evaluation matters.
The Court was hearing a writ petition arising from the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, where the petitioner alleged unlawful alteration of marks in her mains answer script and sought restoration of earlier recorded marks.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla examined the scope of judicial review in academic evaluation and the effect of interference on settled appointments, and observed: “Any direction for re-evaluation would necessarily require extending such exercise to all similarly placed candidates to maintain parity, thereby disturbing concluded selections and disrupting inter se seniority. Such uncertainty in public appointments is antithetical to the principles of fairness, administrative stability and predictability. Judicial interference in such circumstances would open floodgates, leading to cascading consequences and rendering the process unworkable. Courts must therefore exercise restraint and accord due latitude to examining authorities in the regulation of academic and evaluating matters.”
Background
The petitioner, who appeared in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (Mains), contended that marks awarded to two subjective answers were subsequently reduced without justification, resulting in her falling below the selection threshold. Copies of her answer scripts obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed overwritten marks and corresponding changes in tabulated totals.
The examining authority defended the revisions as part of the evaluation process, stating that corrections made before submission of scripts to the authority fall within the examiner’s discretion. It was emphasised that the governing rules expressly prohibit re-evaluation and that the appointments arising from the examination had already been effected.
The petitioner argued that once totals are recorded, the examiner becomes functus officio and cannot alter marks, and that the court should intervene to restore fairness.
Court’s Observations
The Court reiterated the settled principle that judicial review in academic matters is limited. Evaluation of subjective answers lies within the expertise of examiners, and courts cannot substitute their assessment unless mala fide, bias, or demonstrable illegality is established.
It held that the petitioner failed to establish any material error or arbitrariness warranting departure from the statutory bar on re-evaluation. The Court emphasised that subjective marking inherently involves academic discretion, and judicial reassessment would amount to substituting one opinion for another, an impermissible exercise.
Addressing the consequences of reopening evaluation, the Bench observed that parity requires any re-evaluation to be extended to all similarly placed candidates. Such an exercise would unsettle concluded selections, affect inter se seniority, and produce cascading administrative consequences.
The Court recorded that stability and predictability are essential in public recruitment. Judicial intervention that disrupts settled appointments, in the absence of fraud or manifest illegality, would undermine the integrity of the selection process. It therefore held that restraint, rather than corrective intervention, was warranted.
The Bench further noted that the petitioner participated in the examination with full knowledge of the rules prohibiting re-evaluation and could not challenge the outcome after being declared unsuccessful, absent proof of procedural illegality.
“According to us, directing re-evaluation in the absence of any substantiated allegation of mala fide or material illegality would risk causing manifest injustice to other candidates who have been duly selected. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to meet the threshold required for judicial intervention”, the bench remarked.
Conclusion
Concluding that “the petitioner’s case does not meet the threshold required to warrant judicial interference”, the High Court concluded that the petitioner’s grievance did not meet the threshold required for judicial interference. In view of the express bar on re-evaluation, the subjective nature of assessment, and the absence of mala fide or material error, the writ petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Prerna Gupta v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:983-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Petitioner-in-person
Respondents: Kanika Agnihotri, Vidit Pratap Singh, Khushi Anand, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Shashi Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Robin Kumar, Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Smriti Singh, Naveen Nagarjuna, Abhin Narula
