Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, GITA GOPI
Manthan Kamleshkumar Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned AGP waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Ms. Vidhi J.Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.2 – Gujarat Public Service Commission. With consent, of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the common judgment dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2024 and allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to grant the interim relief, as prayed for by the appellants – original petitioners. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the respective parties, has rejected the request of the appellants – original petitioners to permit them in the Mains Examination, which is scheduled to be held on 20.10.2024.
3. Learned senior advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the appellants at the outset, has submitted that similarly situated candidates to the appellants, who had filed the writ petitions
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.
Timely objections to answer keys in recruitment exams are crucial, and expert opinions hold significant weight in determining the correctness of answers.
The Public Service Commission acted within its authority to cancel and reissue notifications for recruitment, and participants cannot challenge the process post-results.
The court established that the condition of passing the Preliminary Examination is mandatory, but equitable relief can be granted based on performance in subsequent stages.
The court emphasized the need for restraint in challenging key answers and the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in recruitment disputes.
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....
The absence of formal charges against candidates involved in exam malpractice renders extended penalties disproportionate and unjust, necessitating procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.
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
