N.V. Anjaria, J.

Vigilance of a litigant keeps his right alive and enforceable.

2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed, "to direct the Respondent Authorities to put the petitioner higher on the Merit/Waiting list than the Candidates who had appeared in the Examination for the post of Class III Deputy Section Office and Deputy Mamlatdar candidates who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner after addition of the 1.5 marks to his current grant total and consequently direct the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner for the post of Class III Deputy Section Officer and Deputy Mamlatdar".

3. Respondent No.2 Gujarat Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No.51/2014-15 for recruitment on the post of Deputy Section Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar, Class III. The petitioner who belonged to the category of Socially and Economically Backward Class, applied pursuant to the advertisement. The petitioner was given 153 marks and was listed at Serial No.161 in the waiting list. The result of the examination pursuant to which the petitioner scored the aforesaid marks and placed in the list as above, was declared on 28th October, 2016.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he felt that he ought to have been given more marks than scored, therefore, as averred by the petitioner in paragraph 3.3 of the petition, he requested for his answer-sheet by making application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he received the answer-book of the General Knowledge examination, question No.4(b) (i) was correctly attempted by the petitioner, however he was not given marks for the same. It is further averred by the petitioner that in answer sheet of the candidate who ranked first and was above the petitioner in the merit-list, also reflected the same answer to the said question. According to the petitioner, therefore, he cross-checked his answer to be the right answer. It is the further say of the petitioner that in the English main examination paper, the petitioner had given correct answer to question No.5(d)(iii), where also 0.5 marks ought to have been given to the petitioner.

3.2 It is the case that accordingly the petitioner was awarded less marks by 1.5 marks though he had answered the questions as above correctly. It is stated that if said 1.5 marks were added, the petitioner would have secured 154.5 marks and his ranking would have been higher at 124 but due to the aforesaid mistake, he was pushed below to Serial No.161.

3.3 On 09th January, 2019 the petitioner sought permission to place on record xerox copy of receipt of payment of Rs.138/-. The said receipt was physically shown to the Court during the course of the hearing, which was in respect of the aforementioned application which the petitioner made under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3.4 In the affidavit-in-reply, respondent No.2 Gujarat Public Service Commission highlighted condition No.17 in the advertisement which contemplated that the candidate has to apply within 45 days for getting their marks checked, if desired, from the date of declaration of result with requisite fees.

4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by learned advocate Ms. Shrushti Thula for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Ritu Guru for respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondent No.2 Gujarat Public Service Commission.

4.1 Making submissions with elaboration and vehemence, learned senior advocate contended that there was a gross negligence on part of the examiner. He submitted that result was declared on 28th October, 2016 and on 10th November, 2016 petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, that the petitioner received copy of the answer-book on 15th December, 2016 and at that juncture he saw that marks given to him were not proper. Therefore, he requested the authorities