Re-Evaluation Barred Under Rules: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Revision of DJSE 2023 Final Results
The Delhi High Court has refused to revise the final result of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination (DJSE) 2023, stating that judicial interference at this stage could open “floodgates” and disrupt the entire selection process.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said that courts must show restraint in academic and evaluation matters. They added that examining authorities should be given due freedom to regulate examinations and assessments.
The Court observed that while individual candidates may have grievances, these must be balanced against the need to maintain fairness, stability, and integrity in the selection system.
The plea was filed by Prerna Gupta, who alleged that her marks were unlawfully reduced at the final stage of evaluation. She claimed that 20 marks were deducted from her Paper-I (Mains Written) score after the initial evaluation, which led to her being declared unsuccessful.
The Delhi High Court administration opposed the plea, arguing that re-evaluation is clearly barred under the Delhi Judicial Services Rules. It also warned that reopening results would disturb appointments that had already been finalised.
Rejecting the petition, the Bench held that examiner discretion cannot be questioned unless there are clear allegations of mala fide intent, bias, or fraud. It also noted that the answers in question were subjective in nature.
The Court clarified that when rules prohibit re-evaluation, interference is permitted only in rare and exceptional cases involving clear material errors or manifest arbitrariness. Merely revising marks before the final result, without evidence of wrongdoing, does not make the process illegal.
The Bench further stated that ordering re-evaluation for one candidate would require extending the same benefit to all similarly placed candidates, which would unsettle concluded selections and disrupt seniority. Such uncertainty, the Court said, goes against principles of fairness and administrative stability.
