Libertatem Magazine

Delhi HC Dismisses Petition in the Case of Delhi Higher Judiciary Service Preliminary Examination

Contents of this Page

The Appellant filed this Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court and sought directions to the Respondents to alter the below-mentioned questions in Delhi Higher Judiciary Service Preliminary Examination.

Brief Facts

The current Writ Petition had been filed to seek directions to the Respondents to alter the answers to Question 7, Question 53, Question 78, and to remove Question 134 of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Service Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) held on 2nd February 2020.

Arguments before the Court

Learned counsel on the behalf of Petitioner stated that for question No. 78, the right answer should have been option “(3)”. Since there were two possible correct answers to question No. 78, the Petitioner could not be penalized. He also stated that for question No.7, the right answer should have been option “(1)”. Hence, the question of rape or no rape could not be decided on the facts of the question as there might be different consequences of the case depending on age, income, economic status, demographic status, social status, or education of a woman. He stated that in question No. 53 the right answer shouldhave been “(1)”, as mere registration of a trademark does not entitle a person to a remedy of passing off as it is not stated in the Question that the Plaintiff company had any reputation or goodwill. He stated that question No. 134 should have been removed because the proceeding u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 were ‘summary’ according to Section 373 of the stated Act.

The learned counsel on the behalf of the respondent had stressed on recording the minutes of the meeting of Examination-cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee held on 19th November 2020 in which the comments of the petitioner in respect of four impugned questions had been considered.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed that the Petitioner had given detailed reasons about why the impugned answer key was the single, objective, correct answer of the four options provided in the exam. There was no other answer that could be “correct”.

Decision of the Court

The Court dismissed the present Writ Petition & directed that a candidate should not suffer for answers at variance with the key only if the answer key was proven to be incorrect beyond doubt. A presumption of correctness might be subject to judicial review only when it was “demonstrably wrong” which means, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct.

Click here to view the Judgement. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author