New Delhi: In an order passed on May 14, 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul issued notice in the matter of Meenakshi Meena vs The High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General and Others (W.P.(C) 6425/2025), scheduling the next hearing for October 14, 2025.
The petitioner, Meenakshi Meena, a judicial aspirant, has filed the present writ petition challenging the alleged alteration and tampering of marks originally awarded in Paper-2 (Civil Law-I) of the Delhi Judicial Services Mains Examination (Written), 2023, conducted on April 13, 2024.
The petitioner contended that the marks originally awarded to her for Question No. 8 were altered from ‘5’ to ‘3’, and simultaneously, the total marks on the main page were changed from ‘70’ to ‘68’—without any endorsement or signature/initials of the examiner. The petition further argued that despite securing an overall score of 422 out of 850 marks (more than 45% in aggregate), she could not qualify for Viva Voce as she fell short by two marks in Paper 2 – Civil Law-I, thereby not meeting the criterion of securing a minimum of 35% in each written paper.
The petitioner had successfully qualified the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination held on February 2, 2024, under Roll No. 190, and appeared for the Mains Examination on April 13 and 14, 2024. The result of the DJS Mains Examination (Written), 2023, was declared on January 7, 2025, and the final result was published on March 4, 2025.
Through an RTI application filed on March 20, 2025, and registered on March 21, 2025 (Diary No. 645 of 2025), the petitioner obtained copies of her answer sheets on April 9, 2025. Upon scrutiny, she found that the marking in Question No. 8 and on the main score sheet had been altered—both numerically and in words—without any endorsement by way of signature or initials of the examiner.
The petitioner made a representation dated April 22, 2025, to the Examination Committee/Respondents, seeking redressal for the alleged unauthorised alteration/tampering of awarded marks, but no response has been received.
She submitted that the alteration constitutes a palpable error, and if the original marks are restored, she would become eligible for Viva Voce, having already secured more than 45% in aggregate and satisfying the 35% per paper requirement with the restoration of 2 marks.
The petition also stated:
“The said cutting/alteration/tampering of marks earlier awarded to the Petitioner by the examiner without any endorsement to the same either on the main/front page of the Answer Sheet or at the page where the answer is reflected is admittedly a palpable error on the part of the examiner.”
The petitioner emphasized that her case is distinguishable from routine judicial review petitions, as she is not seeking re-evaluation but merely restoration of the originally awarded marks. She reiterated that the addition of 2 marks would render her eligible for Viva Voce.
The Court noted, “Issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.”
Notice was accepted on behalf of the respondents by Ms. Kanika Agnihotri.
The Court directed that a counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner, who may file a rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter.
The matter has been re-notified for hearing on October 14, 2025.
Mr. Nitesh Mehra argued for the petitioner, briefed by Ms. Hitaakshi Mehra, and Ms. Ananya Sikri, Advocates, while Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate, appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: Meenakshi Meena vs The High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General and Others
![Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Tribunal's Award Against NHAI in Highway Project Delay Case [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2023/07/lj_9605_23374c2e-392c-4491-a2fe-f2f12fc5272f.jpg)
![Delhi Court Rejects Stay Request in Defamation Case Against Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2023/08/lj_5208_80de1ddc-d76a-4f7f-b180-408e3ae14fb4.jpg)
