ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 10.01.2019 addressed by the respondent – GPSC to the petitioner and it is further prayed that the GPSC may be directed to assign “one mark” for the question No.17.1 and accordingly include the name of the petitioner in the select list prepared for the post of Accounts Officer (Class-I) and Assistant Commercial Tax officer (Class-I).

2. The entire controversy raised in the present petition pertains to the question no.17.1 of the main written test, which was held on 06.01.2018 pursuant to the advertisement No.107/2016-17 published by the respondent-GPSC for the purpose of recruitment of the Accounts Officer (Class-I) and Assistant Commercial Tax officer (Class–I).

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that initially when the result of the examination was declared, it was stated that the petitioner had obtained 76 marks in Gujarati and English subjects in the main written examination and thereafter, the same was corrected and reduced to 75 marks for the reason that the option chosen to the question No.17.1 which was given by the petitioner was incorrect. He has invited attention of this court to the question No.17.1 which reads as under:

“17.1 Use the word in bracket and write the sentence in the future tense.

Keep similar meaning The tickets will be available on Tuesday. (Printed)

The tickets .......... by Tuesday.

a) Will be printed b) Will have been printed b) Will print d) Can get printed

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that option “A”, which specifies “will be printed” is in fact the correct answer as it is future tense of the sentence, which was incorporated in the question and not option “B”, on which the reliance is placed by the respondent-GPSC. He has submitted that the aforesaid option is apparently correct and the respondent-GPSC in fact has fallen in error in prescribing option “B” on the decision advice of an expert. He has submitted that thus, the respondent-GPSC may be directed to grant one mark as the petitioner has correctly answered the option “A”. In support of his submission, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court as follows:

(i) Sandhya Naranbhai Maru vs. Secretary Gujarat Panchayat, 2016(2) GCD 1350 = 2016(0) AIJEL_HC 234059;

(ii) Kanpur University, Through Vice Chancellor vs. Samir Gupta &

Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 309;

(iii) Manish Ujwal & Ors. Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 744;

(iv) In common order dated 26.02.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.14573 of 2015 and cognate petitions;

3.2 While placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University, Through Vice Chancellor vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. (supra) he has submitted that the courts can direct the respondent authorities to correct the answer key, if the key answer supplied in the paper-sheet is incorrect. Further reliance is also placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the case of Manish Ujwal & Ors. (supra), whereby the Apex Court has held that in case it is found that the answer key is incorrect, it is always open for the court in an appropriate case to direct the respondent authorities to correct the same and for such unfair act of prescribing an incorrect answer, the students may not have to suffer. It is thus submitted that in view of the law annunciated in the aforesaid judgements, the present petition may be allowed and the respondent-GPSC may be directed to assign one mark to the petitioner. He has further submitted that in fact the question No.17.1 states that the sentence has to be answered in “Future Tense”, however, the expert has submitted that the answer should be in “Future Perfect Continuous Tense”. It is submitted that the question No.17.1 does not state that the sentence has to be written in Future Perfect Continuous Tense and since “will be” would be an example of Fut