Sanjeev Narula JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to modify answers to Question 7, Question 53, Question 78, and to delete Question 134 of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Service Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) held on 2nd February 2020.
3. The impugned questions and the correct answers in bold are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Q.7. 'A' is married and is having one child. A's husband 'B' does not live with her. 'C' on false promise to marry 'A' makes physical relationship with her and later refused to marry.
(1) 'C' has committee the offence of rape.
(2) 'C' has not committed the offence of rape.
(3) 'C' has committed the offence of sexual assault.
(4) 'C' has committed the offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.
Q. 53 Company 'A' is the registered trademark holder of the mark 'VITE' specifically in respect of pens. Company 'B' adopts the name 'VITE' in respect of ink. The adoption by company 'B' constitutes
(1) Infringement
(2) Passing of
(3) Both infringement and Passing off
(4) Neither infringement nor passing off"
"Q.78. While sentencing the accused in an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, the relevant criteria is
(1) Reformation
(2) Deterrence & Denunciation
(3) Both (1) & (2)
(4) None of the above"
"Q.134. A Decision rendered in a proceeding under Section 372, Indian Succession Act, 1925
(1) is summary in nature
(2) does not finally decide the rights of the parties
(3) does not bar the trial of the same question in any other proceedings between the same parties
(4) All of above"
4. Petitioner states that for question no. 78, the correct answer should be option "(3)". He submits that the Supreme Court in K.P. Singh vs. State of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No. 1264 of 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 444 of 2015] while dealing with an offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act took note of 'reformative' aspect of punishment and consequently, according to him the punishment under Prevention of Corruption Act is reformatory as well. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.G. Goswami vs. Delhi Administration, MANU/SC/0081/1973 : (1974) 3 SCC 85.
5. Petitioner in person vehemently states that since there are two possible correct answers to question no. 78, the petitioner cannot be penalized. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Sumit Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Anr. wherein it has been held as under:-
"11. We have to apply the aforesaid standard or test when we examine the contentions of the two petitioners. In other words, only when we are convinced that the answer key is "demonstrably wrong" in the opinion of a reasonable body of persons well-versed with the subject, will it be permissible to exercise power of judicial review. Albeit, in cases where the answer key is indeed incorrect or more than one key to the answer could be correct, the candidates should not be penalized for answers at variance with the key. The expression "demonstrably wrong" and the clapham omnibus standard or test on the second aspect (i.e. more than one correct key) is noticeably the corner stone of the said principle. While applying the said test, the Court should keep in mind tha........