SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 11978, 10651, 11737 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Jigar Kshatriya, N.K.Majmudar, Maulin Pandya, Kamal Trivedi, premal R.Joshi, Vinay Bairagra, Advocates

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 54 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Right to lodge a caveat - No person shall be eligible for election as President unless - Whether candidates is able to discern difference between election of President and Vice President and statement 1 and statement 2 needs to be seen in that context - It is expected of candidate to understand demand of question and decide choice on basis of demand of question and information given – Held This Court, it was not open to Division Bench to have examined correctness of questions and answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of Expert Committee in its judgment -Reliance was placed by Appellants Rajasthan Public Service Commission - In said judgment, this Court interfered with selection process only after obtaining opinion of an expert 4 (2018) 8 SCC 81 committee but did not enter into correctness of questions and answers by itself -Therefore, said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of dispute in this case - Court would fall into an exercise of undertaking an inferential process of reasoning, which it cannot - Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. All these petitions have been filed by candidates who have been unsuccessful in the examinations held for the posts of Lok Rakshaks (Class-III).

2. It is the case of the petitioners in the respective petitions that the Recruitment Board wrongly cancelled Questions No.8 and 93 and answer keys to some questions were wrong which resulted in their losing marks and thereby being declared as unsuccessful.

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. An advertisement was issued for the posts of Lok Rakshaks by the Recruitment Board for a total of 1983 posts. The pattern of examinations for the purpose was a paper of 100 marks with "Multiple Choice Questions" with four alternative answers for each question. The candidates were required to tick one of the four options to each answer. Each correct answer would earn the candidate one mark but a wrong answer would entail deduction of 0.25 marks. There was an option of "not attempted" which would not result in any deduction of marks.

4. Mr Jigar Kshatriya Party-In-Person in his Special Civil Application has made the following submissions.

4.1 He would submit that the qualification standards that the candidates were expected to have was standard 12 and therefore the candidates for the preparation of such examinations would fall back on text books meant for standard 8/10 and 12 of the GCERT and NCERT.

4.2 Mr.Kshatriya would assail the correctness of several answer keys and submit that the correct answers as provided in the final answer keys were in fact not the correct options and therefore the petitioner lost marks which he was otherwise entitled to as the answers that he had attempted were in fact correct and the answers given in the final answer keys were wrong.

4.3 Mr.Kshatriya would demonstrate by taking the court through each question relevant for the purpose and demonstrate the fallacy of the Board and submit how flawed the final answer key was.

    a) He would submit that out of 100 questions two questions namely question no.8 and 93 were wrongly cancelled and for 5 questions there were discrepancies.

b) As far as Question No.19 is concerned, he would submit that the correct answer was option D as per Science and Technology Text Book of Std.10 and in the final answer key the options B and C were wrong. The question pertained to the unit of distance between planets and according to the petitioner the correct answer was D i.e. light years and not kilometers or miles.

c) Similarly so far as Question No.26 was concerned the final answer key suggested the correct answer as D whereas the correct answer was C. He would submit that the candidate had to opt for the correct option in context of the question addressed regarding the election procedure of the President and the Vice President Of India and the option C that the Vice President was elected by the Members of Parliament and that their tenure was 5 years was the Option which should have been correct and that Option D which included the first answer stating that the President is elected through the Members of Parliament and State Assemblies was wrong as, as per Article 54 only the elected members of the respective Houses would elect the President and the nominated members would not form part of the Electoral College and therefore Option D was wrong.

d) So far as Question No.35 was concerned the correct answer given in the answer key was C but the correct answer according to him ought to have been D. The question pertained to options with regard to Mangrove Jungles and that per the Board the first three options were right whereas the petitioner opted for all the four options being right and therefore had opted for option D.

e) Qua Question 75 where the correct answer as per the final answer key was Option D whereas as per party-in-person the correct answer was Option A as the Greenwich Line passed through the Greenwich City and that option that the Tropic of Cancer was passing near to the Ahmedabad City was wrong as the Line was at a distance of 99 Kms from the City.

f

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top