The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a petition filed by a candidate of the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS) Main Examination (Written), 2023, seeking publication of a revised merit cum waiting list. The plea was filed by Meenakshi Meena, who raised serious concerns about alleged tampering of marks in her Civil Law-I answer sheet.
A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul passed the order while hearing the writ petition W.P.(C) 6425/2025. The petition challenges the evaluation process of the DJS Mains 2023, alleging unauthorized alterations in the marks originally awarded to Meena in Question No. 8 of the Civil Law-I paper.
“Issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued,” the bench stated, while listing the matter for further hearing on October 14, 2025.
According to the petition, Meena discovered discrepancies in her answer sheet upon careful scrutiny. The marks awarded for one of the questions appeared to be altered both numerically and in words. These changes, she contended, lacked any signature or initials from the examiner, raising concerns about the authenticity and legality of the alterations.
“That the said alteration and/ or revision of originally awarded marks for Question No. 8 did not bear any endorsement by way of signature and/or initials of the Examiner and, therefore, could not be said to bear any authentication,” the petition highlighted.
Meena argued that these changes significantly impacted her standing in the merit list. She also informed the Court that her formal representation to the Examination Committee regarding the alleged tampering is still pending without any resolution.
The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to restore the original marks that were allegedly tampered with. Additionally, she urged the Court to direct the Delhi High Court administration to issue a revised merit cum waiting list, placing her at the appropriate rank based on her actual marks.
She also requested that guidelines be laid down for examiners regarding changes made during the checking process. Specifically, she called for mandatory endorsements or authorizations for any such alterations in the answer sheets of judicial service examinations.
The plea has attracted attention due to the sensitive nature of judicial examinations and the demand for a transparent evaluation process.
The Court has asked the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, representing the respondent authority, to file a counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner is permitted to file a rejoinder, if necessary, within another four weeks.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Ms. Hitaakshi Mehra and Ms. Ananya Sikri, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv
Title: MEENAKSHI MEENA v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR.