Sh Sanjeev Kumar Kulshrestha And ANR v. Union Of India And ORS

$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2022 + W.P.(C) 4025/2022 SH SANJEEV KUMAR KULSHRESTHA AND ANR ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Dharmenda Vashishtha, Advocate For the Respondent:

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms.Priya Singh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1.

The only submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that in the answer sheet of the Petitioner, the Examiner has incorrectly given him four marks for two wrong questions and has deducted four marks for two correct questions.

2.

Learned counsel submits that this shows that the Examiner was not well versed with the procedure to be followed in the Railway By:VINOD KUMAR 16:25:44 WP(C) 4025/2022 1

Examination.

3.

On a query to the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to whether there would be any difference to the result of the Petitioner in case marks that have been deducted for correct answers were granted, the response of learned counsel is that it will not make a difference because Petitioner has been awarded 4 marks for wrong answers and 4 marks have been wrongly deducted and the grant of 4 marks would be correspondingly reduced by 4 marks wrongly granted. 4.

In view of the fact that any exercise by this Court would not benefit the Petitioner and the result of the Petitioner would not change, we are not inclined to entertain the challenge of the Petitioner to the impugned order as the exercise becomes purely academic. 5.

In view of the above, we dispose of the petition without commenting upon the legal issues raised by the Petitioner, same are left open.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2022 'yg'

By:VINOD KUMAR 16:25:44 WP(C) 4025/2022 2