Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE, JJ.
PARTH MANISHKUMAR PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 784 of 2023, Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023
Decided On : 04-09-2024
Judgment - Recruitment - Article 226 - The court examined the validity of answer keys in recruitment exams, emphasizing the importance of timely objections and expert opinions in determining correct answers.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the answer key of a recruitment exam, claiming their answers were correct. They sought additional marks based on alleged errors in the key answers published by the GPSC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants did not raise timely objections to the answer key and that the expert opinions provided by GPSC were valid, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to additional marks based on their claims of incorrect answers in the answer key published by GPSC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants failed to provide timely objections and sufficient demonstrable material to challenge the expert opinions on the answer key.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.06.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023.
2. The issue at the root is the claim of the appellants for additional marks for the answers given by them to two particular questions in the preliminary objective test conducted as a part of recruitment to the post of Assistant Forest Officers by the State through the GPSC. According to the appellants, the key answers to the two particular questions where wrong whereas the answers given by the appellants were right and therefore the appellants were entitle 2 to additional marks.
3. By an order dated 20.06.2023, in an interim application with the present appeal, the appellants were permitted to appear in the main examination which was scheduled the very next day that is on 21.06.2023. Accordingly, all the appellants had appeared in the main examination however pending the appeal their results were not declared along with the results of the main examination.
3.1 Another interim application was filed by the appellants seeking interim direction to declare the results of all the appellants. This prayer so that in case the appellants are declared to have cleared their main examination also then they may appear in the interview which are scheduled to start from today that is second September 2023.
4. This Court in its order dated 22.08.2024 called upon the respondent–GPSC to produce in sealed cover the result of the main examinations. Accordingly, in two-LPA, the present one and LPA No. 783 of 2023, the GPSC has placed the outcome of the appellants in the sealed cover.
4.1 The sealed cover was opened in the open Court and as per the contents of the results, it is revealed that the sole appellant of LPA No. 783 of 2023 was declared as ‘not eligible for interview’. The said appeal came to be disposed of by a separate order.
4.2 Similarly, in the present appeal, there were 15 original appellants and 16th appellant was added upon amendment. The sealed cover was opened in this appeal also and the same revealed 14 of the appellants was declared ‘not eligible for interview’, whereas two appellants; appellant Nos.15 and 16 were found ‘eligible for Interview’. In view of this development, the appeal qua appellant No. 1 to 14 will be rendered only academic as they have not cleared the main exams.
4.3 Learned Advocate for the appellants therefore is unable to pursue the appeal for appellant Nos.1 to 14 any further, but has prayed the appeal be examined on merits qua appellant Nos.15 and 16.
5. At the outset, the Court may observe in the chronological progress of these matters; the petition is filed at 11th hour creating artificial urgency; then making interim application seeking directions to allow the appellants to appear in the forthcoming stage of the recruitment process. The GPSC conducted prelim exams on 30.10.2022 for two papers in General studies, on 01.11.2022 provisional answer key was published, objections were received and final answer key was published on 07.02.2023 and on 10.03.2023, result of prelims was declared. The Special Civil Application was filed on 06.04.2023. The Special Civil Application was taken up on 15.06.2023 and on 16.06.2023, the petition stood rejected. The main exam was conducted on 21st, 23rd and 24th June, 2023. The petitioners filed the present LPA on 20.06.2023 and were permitted circulation on the same day i.e. on 20.06.2023 and this Court passed an order on 20.06.2023 by way of interim relief permitted the appellants to appear in main exam without creating any right or equity.
6. Accordingly, the appellants appeared on 20.07.2024 and list of eligible candidates for interview was declared. Again an interim application was filed on 30.07.2024 praying to call for results of appellants in sealed cover and permit the appellants to appear in interview scheduled.
6.1 This application, filed on 30.07.2024, was for the first time listed on 22.08.2024 and
Timely objections to answer keys in recruitment exams are crucial, and expert opinions hold significant weight in determining the correctness of answers.
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
The court upheld the refusal of interim relief for candidates who missed the application deadline, emphasizing adherence to recruitment policies and the necessity of establishing a prima facie case.
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 per....
The court mandated grace marks for incorrect answer keys, emphasizing the priority of accurate assessment in recruitment processes.
The court established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to interfere in examination matters, the requirement for clear and unambiguous questions, and the need for rare and exception....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
