Synopsis

The respondent candidate failed to raise objections to the provisional answer key within the stipulated time window. After the results were declared and he was found below the cut‑off, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the answer key and seeking provisional permission to appear in the next stage (Tier‑II). The Tribunal granted interim relief. The High Court set aside the interim order, holding that a candidate who does not avail the prescribed objection mechanism cannot be permitted to challenge the answer key belatedly after the declaration of results. The court followed the settled law in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. that judicial interference in academic matters is limited and that the examination process must be respected.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 5th May 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 5510/2026 (2026:DHC:3796-DB)

Core Law: Service Law / Examination Law – Judicial review of answer keys, Objection mechanism, Interim relief.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

W.p.(c) 5510 of 2026

Union of india & anr (petitioners) vs. Suyash kumar awasthi & anr (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice vivek chaudhary and hon’ble ms. justice renu bhatnagar (division bench)

Date: 5th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

• Central administ

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.