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.

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 being Special Civil Application No.9321 of 2024 and allied matters; the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.07.2024, has allowed them to appear in the mains written examinations. It is submitted that the present appellants were late by 15 days and the learned Single Judge has rejected the similar interim relief of permitting them to appear in the main examinations on the ground of delay.

4. Learned senior advocate Ms. Megha Jani has also tried to convince us by taking to the various questions and answers for which the appellants are claiming one mark. It is submitted that in case, they are granted one mark to such questions and answers, they would be qualifying for appearing in the main examination. While placing reliance on the order of the Supreme Court dated 13.09.2023, it is urged that the Supreme Court in identical situation has permitted the candidates to appear in the written examinations. It is submitted that the appellants will not claim any equity and thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt appearing for the respondent – Gujarat Public Service Commission has submitted that in fact, when the earlier order dated 01.07.2024 was passed in Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2024 and allied matters by the learned Single Judge allowing the other writ petitioners to appear in the written examinations, no affidavit-in-reply was filed and she was not having the details from the Gujarat Public Service Commission for pointing out it to the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that in fact, the order was passed on 01.07.2024, since the last date of filling-up the form was on 03.07.2024. In the present case, it is submitted that the appellants cannot be permitted to appear in the main examinations, as the cut-off date is over. On the merits of the matters, she has submitted that the data, which has been given by the G.P.S.C. to her, reveals that the G.P.S.C. has in fact, admitted that there are total 23 answer keys, which have been corrected by the G.P.S.C. and 9 were cancelled, and accordingly prorata marks are given, as per the policy of the G.P.S.C. She has in fact, referred to the statement prepared in the case of each and every appellant and submitted that even after the prorata marks are given to them, they are not qualified in appearing in the main examinations, as they have secured marks lesser than the cut-off marks.

6. In rejoinder, learned advocate Ms. Jani invited our attention to the question Nos.17, 20, 100 and 104, and has submitted that the G.P.S.C. was required to give one mark and not the prorata marks, which would debar the appellants from further appearing in the examination. In support of her submissions, she