Delhi High Court refuses re‑evaluation of DJSE answer script despite alleged post‑totalling mark alterations

A bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla heard a writ petition by Prerna Gupta challenging an alleged interpolation and reduction of twenty marks in Paper‑I of the Delhi Judicial Services (Mains) 2023 examination and sought restoration of the original marks and consequential revision of the final result.

The Court dismissed the petition and declined to direct re‑evaluation. It held that the petitioner had not established mala fide, bias or material illegality and that the challenged answers involved subjective evaluation falling within the examiner’s domain. The Court noted that the DJS Rules expressly prohibited re‑evaluation and that revisions made while scripts remained with the examiner were legally permissible. The Court emphasised judicial restraint in academic matters and the practical consequences of disturbing concluded appointments. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The scope of judicial review in such circumstances has been authoritatively delineated by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) as follows:

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.’”

Background

The dispute arose from the DJS 2023 selection process, conducted under the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, comprising Preliminary, Mains and viva‑voce stages. The Mains comprised four papers with minimum qualifying thresholds. Results declared in January 2025 shortlisted 153 candidates for viva‑voce; a notification of appointments issued in August 2025 recommended 53 candidates. The petitioner was placed at overall Rank No. 45 with 605 marks and at Serial No. 12 on the waiting list; the last selected candidate in the General category had 615 marks.

After obtaining her answer scripts under RTI, the petitioner found that marks for Question Nos. 5 and 8 in Paper‑I were overwritten: marks of 25 and 30 were altered to 15 and 20 respectively, and the aggregate on the front sheet showed successive changes from 191 to 171 and then to 169 (the Court accepted the 171→169 change as arithmetical). The petitioner alleged arbitrary post‑totalling reduction that, if restored, would alter her merit position.

Respondents denied mala fides, submitted that subjective assessment lay within examiner discretion, and relied on precedent restraining judicial re‑evaluation. They produced other answer scripts showing similar revisions and emphasised that most appointees had already joined service. The petitioner relied on authorities condemning interpolation where tampering was shown.

The Court noted the Appendix to Rule 15 which “expressly prohibited re‑evaluation” and quoted the rule: “There shall be no re‑evaluation of answer sheets in respect of Preliminary Examination and Mains Examination (Written). No request for re‑evaluation of answer sheets shall be entertained and the same shall be liable to be rejected without any notice to the candidates.” Applying settled precedents, the Court found (i) no pleaded or established mala fide or bias against the examiner, (ii) the questions in issue were subjective making judicial reassessment impermissible, and (iii) revisions appearing to have been made prior to finalisation were lawful. The Court further invoked estoppel principles and the equity‑based approach that appointments made without fraud and relied upon by appointees should not be disturbed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of; there was no order as to costs. An interim order had earlier made one appointment subject to the petition; no further relief was granted.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.(C) 10517/2025 Case Title: Prerna Gupta v. Registrar General of Delhi High Court & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Prerna Gupta, Petitioner‑in‑person For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Vidit Pratap Singh and Ms. Khushi Anand, Advocates for Registrar General/Delhi High Court; Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Robin Kumar, Ms. Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi and Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocates for Respondents No.2 & 3; Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Advocate for R‑5; Mr. Abhin Narula, Advocate for R‑6.