JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. Admit. Learned counsel waive service on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard today finally. 1. Whether the introduction of negative marking system in the written examination, after the selection process had commenced and which, originally, didn't find place in the Advertisement issued by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, amounted to "changing the rules of the game after the game is played", is the moot question that arises for our consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2294 of 2017. 2. The facts in brief are as under; On 15.01.2016 the appellant herein, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [for short, "the Corporation"] published an Advertisement for various posts in different cadres. After scrutiny of the applications, the appellant-Corporation issued Call-letters to around 10044 candidates for appearing in the written examination scheduled on 14.11.2016. It appears that the task of conducting the written examination was outsourced by the appellant-Corporation to Gujarat Technological University [for short, "the GTU"], respondent No. 2 herein. 2.1 In connection with the aforesaid examination, the appellant-Corporation published relevant information relating to the examination, in the form of "Instructions", on its Web Portal on 29.10.2016. When the written examination was conducted on 14.11.2016, the respondent-GTU published further "Instructions" on the Question Paper whereby, it introduced the negative marking system in the assessment of answer sheets. After the written examination was over, the appellant-Corporation declared Results on 23.12.2016. 2.2 The respondent No. 1 herein, original petitioner, secured 45 marks in the said examination and was declared "Pass", having crossed the minimum passing 40 marks. However, one of the candidates, who had appeared in the said examination, addressed a letter to the appellant-Corporation pointing out that the Result declared on 23.12.2016 is erroneous, as the negative marking system had not been put into use while assessing the answer sheets of candidates. The appellant-Corporation inquired about the same from respondent-GTU and when the said fact was confirmed by respondent-GTU, the appellant-Corporation cancelled the Results declared on 23.12.2016. 2.3 The appellant-Corporation, thereafter, declared the revised Results on 23.01.2017 by applying the negative marking system. The appellant-Corporation inquired about the same from respondent-GTU and when the said fact was confirmed by respondent-GTU, the appellant-Corporation cancelled the Results declared on 23.12.2016. 2.3 The appellant-Corporation, thereafter, declared the revised Results on 23.01.2017 by applying the negative marking system. The appellant-Corporation issued a Press-release in the local dailies and displayed a Notice on its Web Portal, stating that if any candidate had any objection against the revised Results declared on 23.01.2017, then he/she could file the objections on or before 08.02.2017. 2.4 The original petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein, who was earlier declared "Pass" in the Results dated 23.12.2016, was declared "Fail" in the revised Results dated 23.01.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the captioned writ petition before the learned single Judge. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that both the Results declared by the appellant-Corporation were erroneous and directed the appellant-Corporation to declare the Results of the examination afresh, by way of the impugned judgment and order. 2.5 Against the aforesaid impugned judgment, the appellant-Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, submitted that the learned single Judge seriously erred in setting aside the revised Results dated 23.01.2017 declared by the appellant-Corporation. It is submitted that the appellant-Corporation had outsourced the task of conducting the written examination to respondent-GTU. Right from the setting-up of the Question Paper to the checking of the "OMR Sheets", every task was to be done by the respondent-GTU. 3.1 It was submitted that the Question Paper prepared by the respondent-GTU specifically provided for the negative marking system and therefore, the respondent-GTU ought to have declared the Results dated 23.12.2016 by applying the negative marking system. However, inadvertently, the respondent-GTU did not apply the negative marking system while checking the answer sheets of candidates and straight-away declared the Results on 23.12.2016. When the above error was brought to the notice of the appellant-Corporation by one of the candidates, necessary inquiry was made with the respondent-GTU, who rectified the mistake and thereafter, revised Result dated 23.01.2017 was prepared, by applying the negative marking system. 3.2 It was contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr. When the above error was brought to the notice of the appellant-Corporation by one of the candidates, necessary inquiry was made with the respondent-GTU, who rectified the mistake and thereafter, revised Result dated 23.01.2017 was prepared, by applying the negative marking system. 3.2 It was contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the introduction of negative marking system, then he ought to have challenged it when it came to his notice on 14.11.2016, i.e. on the date of examination or immediately thereafter. Else, the petitioner should have raised objection against it, in pursuance of the Press-release/On-line notice published by the appellant-Corporation. However, the petitioner neither challenged the same nor raised any objection within the prescribed time-limit, i.e. 08.02.2017. Straightaway the petitioner filed the captioned petition before this Court on 09.02.2017. 3.3 It was further contended that the petitioner had availed the benefit of negative marking system in 13 questions inasmuch as the petitioner had opted for "Option E", which provided that if any candidate was not sure about the answer to the Question specified in Options - A, B, C or D, then he could select 'E', as it would entail no negative marking. Once having cleared the examination, after availing the benefit of negative marking system, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the mode/method of selection, after having found that he had failed in the revised Results declared on 23.01.2017 but, had remained a mute spectator when he was declared 'Pass' in the Results declared on 23.12.2016. Further, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of the introduction of the negative marking system. 3.4 It was submitted that in view of the settled law on the subject, the petitioner could not have challenged the selection process, after having appeared in the written examination on 14.11.2016. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned single Judge seriously erred in setting aside the revised results dated 23.01.2017 declared by the appellant-Corporation. 3.5 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that the system of negative marking was introduced to recruit the best candidates since a common examination was held for different posts. In order to maintain high standards of competence, the recruiting body can always fix a score much higher than required in cases where appointments are to be made by selection from a number of eligible candidates. In order to maintain high standards of competence, the recruiting body can always fix a score much higher than required in cases where appointments are to be made by selection from a number of eligible candidates. For such purpose, the recruiting body can adopt practice or change rules relating to the procedure for selection. It is contended that since the change related to the procedure of selection and not to the eligibility criteria of candidates or such other matter, it cannot be said that the respondents had changed the rules of the game after the game is played. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition. 3.6 In support of the submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 . 4. On the other hand, Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-original petitioner, submitted that the appellant-Corporation could not have introduced the negative marking system at the time of written examination since the earlier "Instructions" issued by the appellant-Corporation did not provide for negative marking. Further, some of the questions and the corresponding model answer keys prepared by the respondent-GTU were incorrect. In view of the above aspects, the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside both the Results declared by the appointing authority. 5. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-GTU, submitted that the appellant-Corporation had outsourced the work of carrying out the recruitment process to respondent-GTU. It was on account of a bona fide error on its part that the answer sheets were assessed, without applying the negative marking system. However, when the said error was brought to its notice by the appellant-Corporation, it was rectified and the revised Results were published, after applying the negative marking system. 6. We have heard learned counsel on both the sides and perused the material on record. Before we advert to the merits of the case, it would be necessary to highlight certain facts that are undisputed. On 15.01.2016 the appellant-Corporation issued advertisement for filling-up vacancies in different cadres. After scrutinizing all the applications, the appellant-Corporation issued Call-letters to around 10044 candidates for appearing in the written examination scheduled on 14.11.2016. Before we advert to the merits of the case, it would be necessary to highlight certain facts that are undisputed. On 15.01.2016 the appellant-Corporation issued advertisement for filling-up vacancies in different cadres. After scrutinizing all the applications, the appellant-Corporation issued Call-letters to around 10044 candidates for appearing in the written examination scheduled on 14.11.2016. Before the written examination, the appellant-Corporation published certain information relating to the written examination, in the form of "Instructions" on its Web Portal on 29.10.2016. 7. It is true that nowhere in the said "Instructions" published on 29.10.2016, it was stated that evaluation of the answer sheets would be done on the basis of the negative marking system whereby, minus 0.25 marks (-0.25) shall be deducted for every wrong, left-over, corrected/erased or answers that are attempted more than once. However, on the date of examination, i.e. on 14.11.2016, certain information relating to the examination was printed on the Question Paper, in the form of "Instructions" and the candidates were asked to go through the said "Instructions". It is not the case of the petitioner that no opportunity was granted by the recruiting agency to go through the said "Instructions" printed on the Question Paper. Therefore, every candidate had sufficient opportunity to carefully go through the "Instructions" printed on the Question Paper, before the commencement of the examination. 8. On 17.11.2016 the provisional answer key was uploaded on the Web Portal of the appellant-Corporation and objections were invited from the candidates. After receipt of the objections within the stipulated period, the appellant-Corporation forwarded them to the respondent-GTU for assessing its correctness. After scrutiny of the objections, the respondent-GTU admitted that there was error in reference to three questions, viz. Question Nos. 50, 51 & 68. However, before the learned single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation and also the learned counsel for respondent-GTU fairly submitted that the answer keys to Question Nos. 91, 92, 96 & 97 were also incorrect and that the appellant-Corporation would grant grace marks to all the candidates in respect of the said Questions. On 23.12.2016 the appellant-Corporation declared Results of the competitive examination wherein, 4302 candidates were declared successful. The petitioner also figured in the list of successful candidates. Thus, the petitioner had also derived benefit of the grace marks, which was reflected in the Results declared on 23.12.2016. 9. On 23.12.2016 the appellant-Corporation declared Results of the competitive examination wherein, 4302 candidates were declared successful. The petitioner also figured in the list of successful candidates. Thus, the petitioner had also derived benefit of the grace marks, which was reflected in the Results declared on 23.12.2016. 9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had not raised any objection against the inclusion of negative marking system in the written examination, though it was not mentioned in the advertisement and was introduced for the very first time, only in the form of "Instructions" printed on the Question Paper, either at the time of or after appearing in the written examination held on 14.11.2016. The petitioner sat over the success achieved by him and never challenged the Results declared on 23.12.2016. 10. However, on the basis of a query raised by the appellant-Corporation, the respondent-GTU realized that the Results dated 23.12.2016 were declared, without applying the negative marking system while assessing the answer sheets of candidates. Therefore, the respondent-GTU reevaluated the answer sheets by applying the negative marking system and thereafter, prepared a fresh merit-list of candidates. On 23.01.2017 the appellant-Corporation published the revised Results and also issued a Press-release/Notice on its Web Portal stating that if any candidate had any grievance against the revised Results, then he/she may submit the objections on or before 08.02.2017. When the revised Results were declared, the petitioner secured 34.25 marks and thereby, was declared 'fail'. 11. Here, it is relevant to note that the petitioner did not submit his objections against the revised Results declared on 23.01.2017 and straight-away filed the captioned writ petition before this Court on 09.02.2017, viz. immediately on the next day of the last date of submitting the objections. It was at this stage that the petitioner raised the grievance that the action of the appellant-Corporation of introducing the negative marking system amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game is played since the selection process had already commenced. If the petitioner was really aggrieved by the introduction of the said system, then he should have raised objection against it at the relevant time. If the petitioner was really aggrieved by the introduction of the said system, then he should have raised objection against it at the relevant time. However, having enjoyed the fruits of success, when his name figured in the earlier list of successful candidates declared on 23.12.2016, which was under the belief that the answer sheets had been evaluated by applying the negative marking system, it is not open to the petitioner to now contend that the procedure of selection adopted by the appellant-Corporation was faulty and/or erroneous, after finding that his name did not figure in the revised list of successful candidates declared on 23.01.2017 when the negative marking system was actually put to use in the assessment of answer sheets. 12. It is true that negative marking system was introduced in the scheme of things, for the very first time, at the stage of written examination and that no reference about it was made in the advertisement. It appears from the advertisement that the recruitment drive was initiated for filling up posts in different cadres and that the candidates applying for different posts had to appear in the common exam scheduled on 14.11.2016. The task of conducting the recruitment process was handed over to the respondent-GTU by way of outsourcing. Considering the fact that a common exam was to be conducted for different posts, the respondent-GTU introduced the system of negative marking, so that the candidates appearing in the written examination do not get the chance to bluff and only those candidates, having knowledge in the specified subjects, could attend the Questions correctly. 13. In our opinion, the system of negative marking helps in churning out talented individuals out of the lot. Nowadays, one could find the system of negative marking in Examinations conducted by almost all major recruiting agencies. Therefore, it is not that the system of negative marking is something new or that the candidates preparing for different competitive examinations were unaware about such system. The only lapse was that though the appellant-GTU had introduced the negative marking system for the assessment of answer sheets, after the recruitment process had commenced, it had not put the said system into use while assessing the answer sheets of candidates. Subsequently, the respondent-GTU rectified the error, which, prompted the appellant-Corporation to cancel the results dated 23.12.2016 and to publish the revised results dated 23.01.2017. 14. Subsequently, the respondent-GTU rectified the error, which, prompted the appellant-Corporation to cancel the results dated 23.12.2016 and to publish the revised results dated 23.01.2017. 14. In our view, though the negative marking system was introduced after the commencement of recruitment process, it does not amount to changing the rules of the game since the recruiting authority has not tinkered with the rules pertaining to eligibility criteria but, has stipulated the procedure for selection by imposing a more rigorous scrutiny. If the new rules pertained to the eligibility criteria of candidates, then it would definitely tantamount to changing the rules of the game but, when the new rules relate to the procedure of selection, it cannot be said that the rules of the game have been changed after the game is played. By introducing the negative marking system, the recruiting body has imposed a rigorous method of scrutiny, which, in turn, would help in selecting talented candidates for different posts. Therefore, we do not find substance in the submission canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the introduction of negative marking system after the commencement of selection process amounted to changing the rules of the game midway. 15. Another notable aspect is that the petitioner is the only candidate who has challenged the selection process, out of the total 10044 candidates, who appeared in the examination. In the earlier Results published on 23.12.2016, 4302 candidates had been declared successful and 1897 candidates were declared "fail" whereas, in the revised results published on 23.01.2017, 2114 candidates were declared successful and 4085 candidates were declared "fail". Out of the total 4085 candidates who were declared "fail" in the revised results, only the petitioner herein challenged the revised results. 16. The challenge made by the petitioner to the revised Results looses its effect since the petitioner himself had taken advantage of the negative marking system, by opting Option "E", which provided that if a candidate is not sure about the answer as specified in A, B, C or D options, then he/she could selected E option, as the said option would not entail any negative marking if the answer was wrong. The record shows that the petitioner had opted for the said Option "E" in not less than 13 answers and had, thereby, availed the benefit of the negative marking system. The record shows that the petitioner had opted for the said Option "E" in not less than 13 answers and had, thereby, availed the benefit of the negative marking system. But, it was only when he was declared "fail" in the revised Results that he challenged the said system, which, in our opinion, is not permissible. 17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge erred in setting aside both the Results published by the appellant-Corporation. The introduction of negative marking system, after the commencement of recruitment process, could not be termed as changing the rules of the game since the said rule pertained to the procedure of selection and not pertained to the eligibility criteria of candidates seeking employment. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned single Judge holding that the revised Results declared on 23.01.2017 after applying the negative marking system was arbitrary and illegal, is set aside. Since it was fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for both the appellant-Corporation and the respondent-GTU before the learned single Judge and also before us that the answer keys to some of the questions were incorrect and that the appellant-Corporation would grant grace marks to all candidates for the said questions, we observe that the appellant-Corporation shall be at liberty to add grace marks for such questions. With the above observation, both the appeal as well as Civil Application stand disposed of.