Candidates cannot challenge recruitment processes post-results without demonstrating legal injury or material error affecting their outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. The present Special Civil Application Nos. 941 of 2024 and 6062 of 2024 are filed praying for the similar reliefs to direct the respondent authorities to undertake a fresh exercise of reevaluation of the answer sheets of all the candidates who have appeared in mains examination for the Advertisement No. 30/2021-2022 in accordance with the standard operating procedure or a general process of evaluation formulated by them and issue direction to the respondent authorities to prepare a standard operating procedure or a general process of evaluation of answer sheets of the mains examination papers before undertaking the task of reevaluating the answer sheets of candidates who have appeared for the mains examinations held for Advertisement No. 30/2021-2022 and further quash and set aside the notification dated 08.11.2023 (Annexure–E) issued by the respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions are that the petitioners are the candidates, who had applied and participated in the recruitment process initiated vide Advertisement No. 30/2021-2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission for the posts of Gujarat Administrative Service Class-I, Gujarat Civil Service Class-I and II and Gujarat Municipal Chief Officer Service Class-II. By the said advertisement, 183 posts were declared to be filled up. The petitioners participated in the said recruitment and cleared the preliminary examination held on 26.12.2021. The result of the said preliminary examination was declared on 31.01.2022 and the petitioners having cleared the same, became eligible to appear in the mains examination. That the mains examination consisted of six papers and each paper carried 150 marks. Thus, the total marks for the mains examination were to be calculated out of 900 marks. All the petitioners appeared in the mains examination conducted from 27.08.2022 to 04.09.2022. That, a total 5706 candidates appeared in the mains examination and the result of the main examination came to be declared on 21.08.2023. About 74 petitioners cleared the mains examination and became eligible to appear in the interview. Rest of the petitioners were unsuccessful in the mains examination. That the interviews pursuant to the declaration of the results came to be conducted from 04.09.2023 to 10.10.2023. A total of 977 candidates were called for the interview. On 08.11.2023, the respondent Commission released the final list of the candidates who were successful in the said examination and were to be recommended to the State Government for appointment. Out of all the petitioners herein, only the petitioners Nos. 54 and 126 were successful at the interview stage and their names were recommended to the State Government for appointment. Rest of the petitioners remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 Commission issued a notice on their website with respect to obtaining the mark sheet, rechecking of marks and receiving the copy of the answer book. It was stated in the notice that the candidates, who want to acquire their mark sheets and the answer books, should apply online from 09.11.2023 to 23.11.2023. Most of the petitioners and other candidates applied for their respective mark sheets by filing up the online form. Many of the candidates including the petitioners received their answer books and upon perusal of the same, the petitioners claim to have found certain discrepancies and irregularities in the assessment, evaluation and marking of the answer sheets which, according to the petitioners, vitiate the whole examination process. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions with respect to the assessment, evaluation and marking of the answer sheets on the ground of arbitrariness, material errors and irregularities and further, there being a common marking pattern without proper evaluation of the answer sheets. Hence, the petitioners