Shivmani Sahu v. Union Of India, Through Secretary (Legal Cell) & ORS.

$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6522/2026 SHIVMANI SAHU .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Bhavishya Shakya, Ms. Mansi Shukla, Mr. Kunal Bansiwal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY (LEGAL CELL) & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms.

Usha Jamnal, Ms. Tanya, Advs.

Ms.

Vilakshana Dayma, Adv.

(appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 13.05.2026 CM APPL. 32155/2026Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6522/2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- "a. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of directing the Respondents to re-evaluate the Petitioner's answers by duly considering the objections raised with respect to Question IDs 4324499610 and 4324499639 in accordance with standard academic The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

references.

b. Pass an appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to revise/correct the final answer key and consequently recompute the Petitioner's marks and result, and grant the Petitioner 1. National Fellowship for Other Backward Classes (NFOBC)) eligibility if found entitled c. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to disclose certified copies of the expert committee reports, reasons for rejection of objections, and reference materials relied upon for finalizing the answer key;

d. Direct the Respondent No.3 to keep one seat/vacancy reserved for the Petitioner in the event the Petitioner is found eligible upon re-evaluation e. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the impugned action of the Respondents in rejecting the Petitioner's objections without assigning reasons as arbitrary, illegal, non-transparent, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;..."

2.

For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3.

Mr. Ali, learned CGSC, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Ms. Dayma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in UGC NET December 2025 Examination for Archaeology (Subject Code: 067), which was held on 05.01.2026.

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

5.

The provisional answer key for the aforesaid exam was released on 14.01.2026, upon which the petitioner within the prescribed time raised objections to Questions bearing ID Nos. 4324499610 and 4324499639. The objection raised was supported by standard and authoritative academic textbooks.

6.

Despite the said objection, in the final answer key, the respondent rejected the petitioner's objections without assigning any reasons. 7.

The result of the examination was declared on 04.02.2026, wherein the petitioner secured 204 marks, falling short by a narrow margin of 4 marks for National Fellowship for Other Backward Classes (NFOBC) eligibility.

8.

It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner duly challenged the aforesaid two questions by raising objections against the answers, within the objection/challenge window, i.e. 14.01.2206 to 17.01.2026 on 17.01.2026.

9.

This statement is objected by Ms. Dayma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

10.

Mr. Shakya, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the objection was duly raised against the aforesaid questions on 17.01.2026 and his statement is borne out of the petition. 11.

To my mind, there are no reasons to disbelieve the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

12.

Mr. Shakya, learned counsel, also states that the petitioner's limited grievance will stand satisfied if the petitioner's objections to the aforesaid questions are decided by the respondent No. 2 in accordance with their extant rules and regulations.

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

13.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the respondent No. 2 shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner with respect to Questions bearing ID Nos. 4324499610 and 4324499639, in accordance with the extant rules and regulations, expeditiously and in any case, not later than 4 weeks from today. 14.

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 13, 2026/sp The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.