Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Delhi HC has given a decision which was affection hundreds of judicial service aspirants, where the court has directed the Registrar General to Re-draw the DJS results of 2018 where 2 questions of the booklet series B was ordered to be deleted as answer to one question being revised in answer key and court order that in answer to one particular question, two of four options were most appropriate.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Prateek Jalan have passed the order based on a petition moved by the six DJs-2018 aspirants who by small margins could not clear the prelims exam. Initially their advocate, Prashant Manchanda had challenged 7 demonstrably erroneous questions.
There was a meeting held by the Examination-Cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee after the adjournments and it was resolved that two questions out of them in view of the objections raised by the petitioners namely questions at Serial Nos. 114 and 120 of the "B" series question paper booklet should be deleted and one mark should be awarded to all the candidates who have appeared in the aforesaid examination.
There was a considered view of the Committee that so far as for question No. 191 in the "B" series question paper is concerned, the answer key should be revised and the correct answer is read as Option (2), in place of Option (1). The minutes of the said meeting have been approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
The two questions which will be deleted and for which one mark will be awarded to all candidates who took the examination are:
Q.114 A court can stop the proceedings of a case under section 258 Cr.P.C. in which of the following cases? Q. No.120 The magistrate has the power to issue a commission for examination of a witness in prison under which section of the Indian Penal Code? Q. 191 for which the answer key would be revised is: A bank has loaned money to B on 2nd January 2015. The limitation available to the bank for suing for recovery of said monies from B expires on.
It was challenged by Manchanda that both the option (1) and (4) are an equally appropriate answer for the question No.183 and of the said two options it cannot be said that one – or the other, is the more appropriate option.
The court agreed the contention made and had directed the respondents to treat both as an equally appropriate answer, thus the parties whoever have answered option (1) or (4) will be awarded a mark
After taking all these aspects into account the respondents should redraw the results and after taking into account the decision arrived at by the Examination-Cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee in its meeting held on 29.01.2019, which has been approved by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, as well as in the light of our present decision before proceeding to hold the main examination.
The bench relied on Sumit Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr while deciding the petition and observed that "No doubt, the purpose of holding a competitive examination like the one in question is to test, inter alia, the knowledge, clarity, and intelligence of the candidates, and to sift the best from the whole lot. For this purpose, the respondent has undertaken the exercise of providing 4 options to each question. The standard adopted by the respondent, evidently, is high in as much, as, the options are not in black or white. There is a lot of grey in the said options. The more meritorious candidates are expected to crack such tricky questions and to come up with the "most appropriate answers". However, even the most meritorious of candidates can fail, when confronted with a situation like the present where two or more options in answer to a question appear to be equally appropriate. A candidate cannot be made to suffer on account of his having chosen one option and not the other.
The exam was conducted on January for 50 vacancies where a candidate who secures a minimum of 60% marks i.e. 120 marks out of 200 and obtains a rank within 10 times the number of vacancies advertised, is eligible to participate in the main examination.
The six petitioners who had challenged the questions and the marks they obtained are Prabhjot Singh, who had obtained 119.75 marks; Anjali Goswami (119.50 marks), Anu Kumari (119 marks), Nidhi Saroj (118 marks), Pariksha (117.50) and Vijayshree Rathore (107.25).
The belated publications of answer key was also challenged by the petitioners which was dismissed by the court that “No prejudice has been suffered by the petitioners, since answer key was uploaded well before the holding of the main examination on the basis of the result declared, and the petitioners have had their opportunity to ventilate their grievance before this Court”.
86540
103860
630
114
59824