A writ petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the results of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination 2019, which were declared on September 26.
The challenge is made by Nishant Basoya, a candidate who appeared in the exam, on the ground of incorrect answers in the results published by the High Court.
The petitioner has cited three questions - Question numbers 171, 6 and 163 - which were allegedly given incorrect answers as per the official results.
Question No. 171 was as follows :
'A' filed suit against three defendants. Defendant No.1 alleged that there was no cause of action against him under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. The Plaint is to be :1) Rejected in whole 2) Rejected in Part if cause of action is not joint and several3) Proceed with against all the defendants 4) None of the above."
The result has marked the answer as option (2). This is stated to be against the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. versus Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr, which held that plaint can only be rejected in whole and not in part.
Question No. 6 was as below:
"Contract for sale of a Maruti Ciaz car 1) Can be specifically enforced2) Cannot be specifically enforced 3) Only damages can be claimed 4) Both (2) and (3)"
The result has marked option 2 as the correct answer. This is stated to be incorrect as Specific Relief Act allows specific performance of contract for sale of movable goods as per Section 10, 11(2), 14 and 16.
Question No. 163 is as below:
"A compromise decree 1) Operates as the res-judicata between the parties to the compromise2) Does not operate as res-judicata 3) (1) or (2) depending on the facts and circumstances of each case4) (1) or (2) depending on the discretion of court."
The result has marked option 1 as the correct answer. According to the petitioner, all the the options are incorrect as the issue is ambiguous and unsettled. There are conflicting views on the point and an authoritative pronouncement is awaited, the petitioner said.
As per the result, the High Court declared the cut-off marks for qualifying the examination as 120.50. Since the Petitioner secured only 119.25 marks, he could not qualify so as to be eligible to give the Mains Examination.
The petitioner prays for reliefs of quashing the result or a direction to re-evaluate the results taking note of the errors.
The petitioner is represented by Advocates Nivesh Sharma and Sagar Shivam from Prudens Globus Legal Solution.