Delhi High Court
Shubham Mishra vs High Court Of Delhi & Anr on 29 May, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7997/2025, CM APPL. 35046/2025, CM APPL.
35047/2025, CM APPL. 35048/2025 & CM APPL. 35049/2025
SHUBHAM MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Mr. Aman
Naqvi, Mr. Rohan Poddar, Mr. Ryan Sinha
and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advs.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul,
Mr. Aman Sahani and Ms. Ashima Chopra,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 29.05.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This is a petition by a candidate who aspires to enter into the
Delhi Judicial Service, for which purpose the petitioner had
undertaken the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2023.
2. The petitioner's contention is that the suggested answer for
question number 11 (iv) of Paper-II (Civil Law-I) of the Delhi Judicial
Service Examination, 2023, is incorrect.
3. The question and the suggested answers read thus:
"11. Please state whether each of the following statements is true
or false.
(Only either 'true' or 'false' is to be written, and nothing else.)
*****
(iv) An Agreement, where both the parties are under a mistake
as to a matter of fact,
is voidable at the option of either of the parties.
Suggested answer-True
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, in view of Section 221
of the Contract Act, 1872, the correct answer has to be "False" and not
"True".
5. An identical challenge has come up before this Court on two
earlier occasions, first in Shobhin Bali v Registrar General2 and later
in Abhin Narula v Registrar General3.
6. In Shobhin Bali, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had held
that, even if the stand of the petitioner was plausible, the matter was
outside the province of judicial interference, as the view of the
examiner who had considered the representation of the candidate and
attempted to justify the answer suggested had to be accorded respect.
7. That matter had travelled to the Supreme Court which, by the
following order, had dismissed the SLP:
"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, at length.
22. Contract caused by mistake of one party as to matter of fact.--A contract is not voidable merely
because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to matter of fact.
2025 SCC OnLine Del 911
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2997
We are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The Special Leave Petition is hence, dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
8. In that view of the matter, we, in our judgment in Abhin
Narula, did not deem it appropriate to interfere and dismissed the writ
petition.
9. Ms. Shyel Trehan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
attempts to distinguish the present case from Shobhin Bali and Abhin
Narula. She refers to a finding in Abhin Narula that, even had the
petitioner got the benefit of his stand qua the aforesaid question, the
petitioner would still not have qualified.
10. Ms. Trehan submits that, as against that, if the present petitioner
had been granted two extra marks for the answer attempted in respect
of question number 11 (iv), being a candidate suffering from
disabilities, he would have qualified.
11. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, appearing for the Delhi High Court,
disputes this contention and submits that the petitioner may still not
have qualified, as all candidates with disabilities who had attempted
this question would be entitled to two additional marks.
12. We do not deem it necessary to enter into this aspect, as the
primary ground on which we have rejected the petition in Abhin
Narula, following the earlier decision in Shobhin Bali, was that, once
the examiner had considered the representation made by the candidate,
the power of the Court to interfere was heavily circumscribed.
13. In the interests of consistency, it is not possible for us to take a
different view in this case.
14. Though we are aware of the fact that the petitioner had initially
approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India and was directed to approach this Court, we regret that, in the
above facts, we are not in a position to interfere.
15. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ petition in limine.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MAY 29, 2025/an
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
