Court holds that candidates who fail to raise timely objections to preliminary exam answer keys cannot seek judicial intervention after results; interference only if error is glaring and obvious
In a significant ruling delivered on October 8, 2026, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Arun Bhardwaj, dismissed a writ petition challenging two questions from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Preliminary Examination, 2026. The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Bhaskar, sought deletion of question numbers 8 and 51 from question paper series `D' and requested recomputation of marks, contending that the official answers were contrary to settled law.
The court upheld the principle that the scope of judicial interference in examination matters is narrowly circumscribed. It held that challenges to answer keys are only entertainable where the alleged mistake is so glaring and apparent that it requires no inferential reasoning or analysis. Moreover, the court reaffirmed that it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the expert committee appointed to scrutinize objections to the answer key unless there is a manifest error.
The background facts reveal that the DHJS Preliminary Examination was held on July 26, 2026, with the official model answer key released on July 28, 2026. Candidates were given a strict three-day window to raise objections. While some candidates objected to certain questions, including the two challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner himself did not file any objections within the stipulated time. After the expert committee reviewed the objections, eleven questions were deleted, but objections relating to the two questions in dispute were rejected. The final results were declared on August 14, 2026.
The petitioner, who failed to clear the cut-off by a narrow margin of 0.25%, filed the writ petition 25 days after the results, just before the scheduled mains examination. The court categorised the petitioner as a "fence-sitter" who delayed raising objections until after the result was known, thereby disregarding the prescribed procedure.
The court referred extensively to precedent, including the Supreme Court's recent decision in Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav (2026) and previous Delhi High Court rulings such as Salil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi (2014) and Shruti Katiyar v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court (2024). These precedents emphasize that candidates must raise objections within the designated timeframe and that courts should not entertain belated challenges motivated by an unsuccessful outcome.
Regarding the substantive challenge, the petitioner argued that question 8-concerning the validity of a Will executed by an intoxicated person under the Indian Succession Act, 1925-did not adequately consider the level of intoxication necessary to impair soundness of mind. Question 51 dealt with the formation of contract and the effect of postal acceptance and revocation rules. The court observed that these issues require interpretative analysis and evidential determination, which are not suitable for judicial second-guessing in examination answer keys unless the error is manifest.
The court also noted that the expert committee's recommendations were vetted and approved by the court's own committee, affirming procedural propriety. It reiterated the principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit must go to the examining body, not the candidate.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction declined. The court's decision underscores the importance of following procedural safeguards in recruitment examinations and signals judicial restraint in interfering with expert committee decisions except in cases of clear, unambiguous errors.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment/Examination Law - Challenge to answer key/questions in judicial service preliminary examination filed after declaration of result by a candidate who had not raised objections within the stipulated time is liable to be rejected - Court will not substitute its opinion for that of the expert committee unless the error is glaring, apparent and requires no inferential reasoning.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India Article 226, Indian Succession Act, 1925
Ravi Kumar Bhaskar v. High Court of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993310
