High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3406/2026

Ashish v. University Grants Commission & ANR.

2026-03-17Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh7 pages

$~98 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3406/2026 & CM APPL. 16371/2026, CM APPL. 16372/2026 ASHISH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr Satayam Singh, Mr. Diwas Kumar, Ms. Aditi Sharma, Ms.

Neema, Ms.

Vipasha Jain, Advs.

Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv.

versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION &ANR...Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Khanna SC, Ms.

Pragya Bhushan, Ms.

Vilakshana Dayma, Mr.

Saurabh Pandey, Ms.

Anshu Kumari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 17.03.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- "a. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to examine the correctness or incorrectness of the answer key in respect of Question ID No. 4324496215 of the UGC-NET December 2025 Examination for the subject Buddhist, Jaina, Gandhian and Peace Studies (Subject Code 060);

b. direct the Respondents to constitute an independent Expert Committee / body to examine and determine The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the correctness of the answer key in respect of the aforesaid question;

c. direct the Respondents to rectify or revise the answer key in respect of the said question in accordance with the decision of this Hon'ble Court or the findings of the Expert Committee;

d. direct the Respondents to revise the result of the Petitioner accordingly, and grant all consequential benefits including eligibility for Assistant Professor, as the Petitioner would cross the qualifying threshold prescribed for the Petitioner's category upon award of the said marks..."

It is the case of the petitioner that the Question bearing ID No. 4324496215 of UGC-NET December 2025 examination in the subject of Buddhist, Jaina, Gandhian and Peace Studies (Subject Code 060), has been incorrectly evaluated and the answer to the said question has wrongly been shown in the final answer key. The petitioner in the present case has secured 188 marks qualifying for admission to the Ph. D. only and he is 2 marks short for qualifying the cut-off marks for Assistant professor eligibility. Hence, the present petition is filed. 3.

Mr. Khanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/NTA, has handed over a copy of the notice dated 14.01.2026, which is reproduced as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

A perusal of the aforesaid notice dated 14.01.2026, shows that any candidate having any grievance/objection with the provisional answer key, was required to challenge the same within a fixed time frame of 14.01.2026 to 17.01.2026 up to 11:50 p.m. After, duly considering the objections raised during this time frame, the provisional answer key is converted to the final answer key with requisite corrections and modification, if any required. 6.

In the present case, there is no document placed on record to show that the petitioner duly challenged the question bearing ID No. 4324496215. The only document available on record in this regard is annexure P-10, which is an email dated 05.02.2026, i.e. about 15 days after the window for raising objections was closed i.e. on 17.01.2026. 7.

My attention has also been drawn to paragraph No. 9 and 10 of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in a batch of similar petitions, one of them being W.P.(C) 4157/2025 titled as "Shivraj Sharma v. Consortium of National Law Universities And Ors". The paragraph No. 9 and 10 of the said judgment read as under:- "9.

In respect of the Question no. 14 of the Master Booklet, learned senior counsel for the respondent/Consortium submitted that within the window period provided by the respondent/Consortium, none of the candidates had availed of such facility and only one of the petitioners herein namely Ms. Harshita had objected to, for the very first time in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 2363/2025 preferred by her. He stoutly contended that The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

this type of objections being raised at this stage before this Court under Article 226 is not permissible. According to him, this question, not having been objected to, was neither referred to the Expert Committee nor reviewed further by the Oversight Committee. In such circumstances, learned senior counsel submitted that this Court cannot examine the said objection in place of an Expert Committee and substitute its own view. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Salil Maheshwari (supra), wherein it was held that an individual cannot be heard to challenge the answer key to a particular question after discovery that no marks have been awarded particularly when such individual did not think it necessary to object to the question before the deadline for submission of objection were not availed of.

10. We find from the record that the submission of learned senior counsel is factually correct. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 2363/2025 did not ever file any objection within the window period provided by the respondent/Consortium and only after declaration of the final results, has petitioned this Court to consider her objection for Question no.14 of the Master Booklet. In case this Court were to entertain such highly belated objections, it would open a pandora's box. We can take note of the fact that sympathy, in the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

above context would entail an unending multitude of litigations, what with any and every individual filing writ petition at any time on their whims and fancies resulting in there being no finality to the examination process or to the final result.

This is clearly impermissible. Additionally, there is no averment in the pleadings with respect to this question. In our considered opinion, no such question, which has not been challenged at the appropriate stage, can or should be permitted to be objected to before a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would also be relevant to note that Courts are not sitting as expert bodies or subject matter experts over the questions formulated by the examination conducting authority; nor can a Court assert expertise over multifarious subjects. It is trite that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and this Court in Shubham Pal (supra), reiterated the principle that if two views are possible, then the view taken by the examination conducting authority should be preferred and upheld.

We concur with the view taken in Salil Maheshwari (supra) that an individual cannot be permitted to challenge the answer key in relation to a particular question after discovery that no marks have been awarded, particularly when such individual did not think it necessary to object to the question The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

before the deadline for submission of objection. Ergo, since in the present matter, the petitioner had admittedly not submitted her objection within the window period provided, it would preclude her from raising the objection before this Court for the first time. On that score, we refrain from rendering any opinion one way or the other."

In this view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner did not raise any objection between the scheduled timeline from 14.01.2026 to 17.01.2026 with regards to the question bearing ID no. 4324496215 and he has preferred the present writ petition only after publication of the final key.

In view of the reasons as aforesaid, I am unable to entertain the petition at this belated stage.

10.

The circular handed over is taken on record.

11.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 17, 2026/NG The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.