Point of law: Courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. Thus, it is not open for this Court to assess the complex questions and its answers and arrive at correct answers.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner - party-in-person with the following relief(s):

“(A) To admit and allow the present petition.

(B) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents to CORRECT the ANSWER KEYS.

(C) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents to put on record the OMR sheets of the petitioner.

(D) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents to put on record the Result of the present recruitment with the marks of all the candidates who show up into the interview with the marks of the petitioner.

(E) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, that the respondent no.2 to not to proceed to interviews or stay the further recruitment process for the disputed post of Motor Vehicle Inspector class-II or further be pleased to direct the respondents to include the present petitioner in the final list of successful candidate for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector class-II or in the alternative direct the respondent no.2 to keep one post vacant for the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspector class-II.

(F) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the present case may required in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner – party-in-person is representing his case and he has submitted that he has already filed written submissions and the same may be considered.

3. It is submitted by the party-in-person that there are atleast 25 questions involved in the written examination of which incorrect answer keys are provided by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). It is submitted by him that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for participating in the recruitment process. The case of the petitioner is that the final answer keys, which have been declared by the respondent no.2, are not valid and proper and the same are required to be corrected and the fresh final answer keys are required to be published. It is submitted by him that an application raising objections with regard to the final answer keys, was submitted within the prescribed time limit. It is submitted by him that as per the text books published by the concerned University as well as settled proposition of various text books, the answer keys provided by the GPSC in these 25 questions are incorrect. It is submitted by him that if the answer keys are corrected, he is entitled for the appointment on the post in question. It is submitted by him that five members committee may be formed to decide the answer keys. He has further referred to pages of the petition from 267 to 328 for placing reliance for the correct answer keys, which relate to the automotive subject including engineer, in support of his submissions. Further reliance has been placed on Pages-367 to 373, whereby the answers of similar questions and answers are referred in the previous recruitment. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to correct the answer keys. He has further submitted that he has already corroborated his submissions by providing proper evidence. However, the respondent-authorities, while filing an affidavit, have not corroborated the evidence, and hence, the affidavit is required to be rejected. He has further submitted that the suggestions, which are put by him, while answering answer keys, are not considered by the GPSC and no policy has been produced by the GPSC justifying their action of finalizing the answer keys. He has submitted that it is always open for the High Court to examine the questions of law and one of the questions pertains to the interpretation of law. Reliance is also placed on the following various judgments:

(I) Ram Narain Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1973 (2) SCC 86;

(II) Kanpur University and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others reported in AI