JUDGMENT :

1. Special Civil Application No. 6805 of 2021 has been filed with to direct the respondents to declare the attempt answer keys and raw marks of the petitioners and to elaborate the normalization method of the examination. It is further prayed therein to direct the respondent authorities not to initiate the process of awarding appointment letters to selected candidates till the disposal of the petition.

2. Special Civil Application No. 7289 of 2021 has been filed praying for quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent in awarding the normative score to the petitioners in the computer based test conducted by the respondent on 27.03.2021 and further to direct the respondent to re-evaluate the marks of the petitioners taking into consideration the answer key as published by the respondent on its website and accordingly the petitioners be considered for provisional and final merit and appointed as per the advertisement in question.

3. Both these petitions are filed by candidates who had appeared for the recruitment process pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.12.2019 for the posts of Vidhyut Sahayaks with the respondents - Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (PGVCL), Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (UGVCL), Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (MGVCL) and Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (DGVCL). The case of the petitioners is that the recruitment was based on an online computer based recruitment test which was conducted in different batches. The test results were declared on 09.03.2021. According to the petitioners, they were hopeful to get their raw marks and attempt answer keys of these examinations. One of the electricity companies uploaded the answer keys of the examination but thereafter within 30 minutes of uploading of the same removed it from the official website. Applications were made to obtain raw marks and answer sheets under the RTI which were rejected.

4. Mr. D.L. Limbola, learned advocate for the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6805 of 2021 would submit as under :

(I) The petitioners have a fundamental right to know their raw marks and get the answer keys. This would lead transparency and there is no reason why confidentiality should be maintained in not disclosing the marks of the petitioners.

(II) It is evident from the uploaded answer keys which was subsequently removed that a few candidates who have got marks 100 out of 100 and whereas one candidate has got 104 marks out of 100 which made the respondents realise the controversy and remove the results from the website.

(III) The petitioners have all the right to atleast know their raw marks i.e. actual marks before normalization and attempt answer keys. This would help them prepare in the competitive examinations and improve in the upcoming examinations. In support of his submissions that there should be transparency, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad reported in 2018 (3) ApexCJ 359. He submitted that the Apex Court had observed that permitting a candidate to inspect his answer sheet does not involve any public interest and once the identity of the examiner is not disclosed the candidates are entitled to inspect their mark sheets. He also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala Public Service Commission and Others vs. The State Information Commission and Others rendered in Civil Appeal No. 823-854 of 2016, paras 9 and 10 to submit that permitting the candidates to see their marks would ensure fair play in the competitive environment. There was no reason, therefore, why the marks could not be seen.

5. Ms. Rajvi Patel, learned counsel appearing in Special Civil Application No. 7289 of 2021 would submit that the only reason why the petitioners were insisting that their marks be re-evaluated and their marks be shown is to promote t