He Was 1.25 Marks Short. That Ended His Answer Key Challenge.

What happened

On 27 December 2024 the Delhi High Court issued a public notice inviting applications for 16 vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, through a three-stage process of Preliminary Examination, Mains and Viva Voce. The Preliminary Examination was held on 2 February 2025.

Model answer keys were published on 6 February 2025 and objections invited. After considering them, a notice dated 20 February 2025 deleted four questions from Booklet Series 'C' as ambiguous — Nos. 6, 22, 60 and 101 — and revised the answers to four others, Nos. 77, 82, 102 and 113. The maximum marks fell from 150 to 146 and the General Category qualifying mark was refixed at 73.

The result was declared on 24 February 2025. The cut-off for the Mains was 77 marks. The petitioner scored 75.75. He filed this writ petition on 12 March 2025, pressing principally the deletion of Question 60, which concerned the evidentiary use of a statement recorded under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What the petitioner argued

Counsel submitted that the original model key had correctly indicated Option (2) — that such a statement can be used only as a previous statement to corroborate or contradict its maker at trial — and that this is what the Supreme Court held in Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka. Treating a question as ambiguous when the settled answer was available was, he said, arbitrary.

He added that of the thousands who sat the paper only eight had objected to Question 60, and none of those objections said the question was vague. No expert opinion had been disclosed before the question was deleted. He relied on Secretary (Health) v. Dr. Anita Puri, Om Prakash Verma v. National Testing Agency, Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the proposition that a palpably wrong answer key is open to judicial scrutiny.

What the High Court said in reply

For the respondent it was pointed out that the Mains had been held on 22 and 23 March 2025, interviews had followed, and appointments had been made. The process was complete.

There was also a neat point on inconsistency: the same impugned notice that deleted Question 60 had revised the keys to Questions 77 and 82, and those revisions had earned the petitioner 1.25 marks each. He could not take the benefit of the revisions and quash the notice that made them.

On the merits, the respondent urged the settled restraint courts show towards expert examining bodies, relying on Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and Kushagra Mittal (Minor) v. National Testing Agency.

The reason the petition failed

The Bench did not reach any of it. The arithmetic disposed of the case.

The cut-off was 77. The petitioner had 75.75. Accepting his case on Question 60 would have added one mark, taking him to 76.75 — still short. The petitioner did not dispute this.

The challenge raised by the Petitioner to the deletion of Question No. 60 was always academic qua the Petitioner's result, as any interference would not come to the aid of the Petitioner.

Since no other candidate had come to Court over Question 60, and the selection and appointments under DHJSE-2024 were complete, the Bench declined to adjudicate an academic challenge. It stated in terms that it had not examined whether Question 60 was correctly or incorrectly framed. Anyone citing this judgment on Section 174 CrPC is citing it for something it does not decide.

The fallback prayer, and why it also failed

Realising the primary relief was going nowhere, the petitioner pressed a narrower one: a one-time age relaxation to sit the next DHJS examination, having crossed the maximum age. He relied on an interim order of 15 June 2026 in SLP (C) 18196/2026, where the Supreme Court had permitted a candidate in a Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service matter to write the Mains pending the SLP.

The Bench found the analogy unusable. That SLP arose from a disqualification for not applying through the proper channel, and the order was interim and case-specific. No legal basis for age relaxation had been shown. The oral prayer was rejected and the petition dismissed on the findings in paragraphs 10 and 11.

Who argued it

Frequently asked

Can you challenge a deleted question in the DHJS Preliminary Examination?

You can, but the Delhi High Court will first ask whether success would change your result. In this case the candidate scored 75.75 against a cut-off of 77, so restoring the deleted question would have added one mark and still left him short. The Court treated the challenge as academic and dismissed it without deciding the merits.

Did the Delhi High Court decide whether Question 60 was correctly deleted?

No. The Bench recorded expressly that it had not examined the rival contentions on whether Question 60 was correctly or incorrectly framed. The judgment is not authority on that question, or on the evidentiary value of a statement under Section 174 CrPC.

What was the DHJSE-2024 cut-off after the answer key revision?

The notice of 20 February 2025 deleted four questions and revised four answers, reducing the maximum from 150 to 146 and refixing the General Category qualifying mark at 73. The actual cut-off for the Mains was 77 marks, and 102 General Category candidates were shortlisted because of a tie at the cut-off.

Can a court grant age relaxation for the next judicial service examination?

Not without a legal basis. The Bench rejected the oral prayer, holding that an interim order in a different Supreme Court SLP concerning the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, which arose from a disqualification on a different ground, gave the petitioner no foundation for that relief.

When will a court interfere with an examination answer key?

Only where the key is palpably and demonstrably wrong, and where interference would actually make a difference. Courts otherwise defer to expert examining bodies, and a challenge that cannot alter the petitioner's own result will not be entertained on the merits.

Before you file against an answer key

1. Do the arithmetic first. Add every disputed mark to your score and compare it against the cut-off. If you still fall short, the petition is academic and will be dismissed without reaching the merits.
2. Check whether the same notice you want quashed also gave you marks. Courts notice that, and it undermines the challenge.
3. File before the process moves on. Once the Mains, interviews and appointments are done, the Court's willingness to reopen drops sharply.
4. If the point is genuinely wrong and affects many, get affected candidates to come together. A single academic petitioner is the weakest way to raise it.
5. Do not plan on age relaxation as a fallback. It needs a legal basis of its own, and an interim order in someone else's SLP is not one.

Authorities the Court relied on

• Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 394 — relied on by the petitioner for the evidentiary use of a Section 174 CrPC statement
• Secretary (Health) v. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282 — alteration of an answer key without expert consideration is open to scrutiny
• Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 — judicial interference where the key is demonstrably incorrect
• Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 — restraint in interfering with decisions of expert examining bodies
• Vivek Kumar Yadav v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1670 — same, in the DHJS context

Source. High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 3547/2025 (Del HC), W.P.(C) No. 3547 of 2025, decided 21 August 2026 by Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.

Claw tracks High Court of Delhi and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in