The Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of mala fide, bias, or fraud, the discretion of an examiner in the evaluative process of subjective answers cannot be questioned. Where the governing rules of an examination, such as the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS) Rules, expressly prohibit re-evaluation, a court’s power to interfere under Article 226 is limited to rare and exceptional cases of demonstrable material error or manifest arbitrariness.
The Court clarified that the mere fact that marks were altered by the examiner before the finalisation of results does not, in itself, constitute such an error or arbitrariness. Any attempt by the court to reassess subjective answers would amount to substituting its own opinion for that of the examiner, which is impermissible in law.
The High Court opined that the petitioner failed to establish any material error, illegality, mala fide, or exceptional circumstance that would warrant judicial interference in the evaluation process. Accordingly, the Court declined the prayer for the restoration of the original marks or for a direction to re-evaluate the impugned answers, having regard to the express prohibition on re-evaluation in the DJS Rules, the autonomy of the examiner, and the settled limits of judicial review.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the term ‘interpolation’ implies mala fide, which the petitioner had neither pleaded nor established against the examiner. It noted that courts must exercise restraint in academic matters and should not substitute their own judgment for that of expert examiners.
The Bench found that an examiner is entitled to revise marks ‘at the first blush’, meaning before the answer scripts are handed over to the examining authority, and such corrections are legally permissible. The Bench also applied the doctrine of estoppel, observing that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot challenge the outcome after being declared unsuccessful.
Further, the Bench took a pragmatic and equitable approach, noting that the selected candidates had already joined the service and their appointments should not be disturbed for an error of the examining authority, especially when there was no fraud or misrepresentation on their part. The Bench clarified that any direction for re-evaluation would also necessitate a similar exercise for all candidates, which would disrupt the entire selection process.
Briefly, the petitioner, Prerna Gupta, participated in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination (DJSE) of 2023. She alleged an unlawful interpolation and reduction of her marks in Paper-I (Legal Knowledge and Language) of the Mains examination after the initial evaluation. Upon receiving her answer script through an RTI application, she discovered that for Question No. 5, the marks were overwritten from 25 to 15, and for Question No. 8, from 30 to 20.
These alterations were reflected on the front page of the answer booklet, where the total was first changed from 191 to 171, and then corrected to 169 due to an arithmetical error. This reduction of twenty marks resulted in her being placed at Serial No. 12 of the waiting list with 605 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in her category secured 615 marks. The petitioner therefore challenged this reduction, seeking the restoration of the original marks.
Appearances:
Petitioner, in person
Advocates Kanika Agnihotri, Vidit Pratap Singh, Khushi Anand, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Shashi Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Robin Kumar, Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Smriti Singh, Naveen Nagarjuna, and Abhin Narula, for the Respondent
