JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. These six petitions involve similar facts and the same issues. They were notified and heard together, now are being treated simultaneously for their disposal. 1.1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta as well as learned senior advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Sanat B. Pandya for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent -State and its authorities, and learned advocate Mr. Nikhil Kariel for the private respondents, in the respective petitions. 1.2. At the conclusion of the hearing, all the learned advocates for the respective parties stated before the court that the pleadings were complete to be applied in all petitions since the facts were similar and that they argued the petitions finally. They are requested the Court to dispose of the petitions finally. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1486 of 2018 is treated to be a lead petition. Recording of facts in this order is referable to the said petition. It is filed by 102 petitioners. Special Civil Application No. 4944 of 2018 is by 10 petitioners whereas Special Civil Application No. 14215 of 2018 is by 04 petitioners. Special Civil Application No. 16473 of 2018 is filed by 04 petitioners. Special Civil Application No. 16423 of 2018 and Special Civil Application No. 16937 of 2018 having there 04 and 03 petitioners each respectively. Special Civil Application No. 15188 of 2018 is filed by 08 petitioners. 2.1. What all the petitioners have prayed in their respective petitions is to set aside the result dated 06th October, 2017 of the qualified candidates whom included both selected and non-selected candidates, for the post of Police Sub Inspector, in the process undertaken pursuant to Advertisement No. 61/2015-16. The next prayer is for a direction to take re-examination of all the candidates by strictly following the instructions in the question paper. The petitioners have prayed to restrain the respondents from issuing the promotions to the posts of Police Sub Inspectors. 3. The process undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement by respondent No. 3-Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board was for the recruitment to the post of Police Sub Inspector, Mode 2. The petitioners have prayed to restrain the respondents from issuing the promotions to the posts of Police Sub Inspectors. 3. The process undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement by respondent No. 3-Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board was for the recruitment to the post of Police Sub Inspector, Mode 2. It was governed by the Rules notified under Notification dated 10th September, 2014 and framed under Section 5 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, called Gujarat Police Sub Inspectors (Unarmed Branch) Special Competitive Examination Rules, 2004, amended as per Gujarat Police Sub Inspectors (Unarmed Branch) Special Competitive Examination (Amendment) Rules, 2014. The petitioners who are the Constables, Class IV and who, as per their case, had completed more than 15 years of service as Constables participated in the process. The petitioners said that they had also cleared the computer certificate examination called CCC Examination. 3.1. The process of Police Sub Inspector, Mode-2 recruitment undertaken pursuant to the advertisement in question issued on 05th February, 2015 consisted of stages. The physical examination was held between 13th February, 2015 and 18th February, 2015. Having cleared the said examination, the petitioners became eligible for written examination. The petitioners were offered the objective type written test which included general studies and psychological test of 100 marks as well as the paper on legal subject of 100 marks. These two examinations were conducted as Part I objective and Part II subjective type which the petitioners passed out. 3.2. The subjective examination was conducted on 23rd July, 2017. It is in relation to this subjective examination that the controversy has arisen. The question paper contained instructions regarding the manner of examination of the answers by the candidates. The total case of the petitioners is that the said instructions were not followed by the examiners, which led to prejudice to the petitioners and resulted into injustice to them. 3.3. The instructions on the question paper translated to the nearest, inter alia mentioned that the candidate would be required to answer the options as required. It was stated that if more than required number of questions are attempted, only those questions starting from the first answered would be examined. The additional options/answers would not be examined and would not be taken into consideration. It was stated that if more than required number of questions are attempted, only those questions starting from the first answered would be examined. The additional options/answers would not be examined and would not be taken into consideration. It is the case of the petitioners that though the answers were required to be given to the required options only and only those serially answered upto the required number, were provided to be examined and the other additionally answered questions were not required to be checked, the said instructions were not adhered to. For instance, if 12 questions were required to be attended and a candidate attended 14 questions, the last two attempted questions would be ignored and would not be examined and only first twelve serially responded in the answer paper would be examined. It was contended by the petitioners that the examiner took into account all the questions attempted and gave marks for all correct answers violating the instructions. 3.4. The result of the examination was declared on 06th December, 2017. It was stated that though the petitioners were shown to be qualified in Part 2 examination, they were not selected for the post. The result was declared on the same day of both class of candidates, qualified as well as not qualified. It was stated by the petitioners that since they did not qualify in the merit-list, they made application in the month of November, 2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response, the Board gave copies of certain answer-sheets. It is the case of the petitioners that from such samples of answer-sheets made available to them, they learnt that the assessment and marking therein were done in breach of the instructions, as all questions attended by the candidates were examined for their answers, not limiting to the examination to the required number and the required options. 4. Learned advocates for the petitioners submitted that from the copies of the answer-sheets made available to the petitioners, it could be seen that they were examined in disregard of the instructions. As submitted, it resulted into non-selection of the petitioners. It was contended that the candidatures of the petitioners were not accepted on the ground that they had not cleared the examination due to their scores being lower compared to those selected. It was contended that that the instructions were not applied properly and uniformly. As submitted, it resulted into non-selection of the petitioners. It was contended that the candidatures of the petitioners were not accepted on the ground that they had not cleared the examination due to their scores being lower compared to those selected. It was contended that that the instructions were not applied properly and uniformly. It was further contended that after petitions were preferred, further 872 vacancies were declared against which the petitioners' case ought to have been considered. 4.1. Learned senior advocates for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the instructions were not issued without any purpose. They required examination and assessment of the answer-sheets by considering the answers upto the required option of serial number and more number of questions even if attended by the candidates, could not have been examined. It was submitted that there could not have been any excuse on part of the authorities for not following the instructions and that, according to them, there was no rational justification of the same. 4.2. Decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar [ (1992) 2 SCC 206 ] was relied on. In that case, in the Civil Services examination, the candidates had violated the instructions issued by the Commission by writing role number not only in the space provided on the cover page of the answer book but also on the pages inside the answer book contrary to the instructions. It was held that the instructions were issued by the Commission in larger public interest to ensure fairness in the examination, which were to be viewed different from penal statute. It was held that the absence of intention to violate the mandates of the instructions was not material and the denial of pre-action opportunity of hearing did not lead to arbitrariness in view of the urgency and absence of expectation for such opportunity. 4.3. By filing affidavit-in-reply, respondent No. 3 contested the petition and the prayers. It was firstly contended that there was a delay in filing the petitions since the results were published as back as on 06th October, 2017 whereas the period of three months was whiled away by the petitioners before the petitions came to be filed. It was further contended that the petitioners having participated in the recruitment process, challenged the same subsequently having realised that they were unsuccessful and that such challenge was barred. It was further contended that the petitioners having participated in the recruitment process, challenged the same subsequently having realised that they were unsuccessful and that such challenge was barred. The question of non-joinder of necessary parties was also raised by raising a plea that those candidates who were the selectees, ought to have been joined as party. 4.4. Learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioners had been riding on vague grounds. It was submitted that when the details of all the candidates, even the details of petitioners versus private respondents, as to how their question papers were actually examined and in what way the alleged prejudice or alleged injustice was done to the petitioners, was not available on record, the petitions could not be entertained. It was submitted that none of the petitioners had placed on record the details of their answers. Nor in respect of the private respondents such details were available on record as to how their answer-sheets were checked. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that result was already declared and the prayer to set aside the whole result was not tenable in law. 5. Dealing at the outset with the decision in Karnataka Public Service Commission (supra) relied on behalf of the petitioners, in that case the instructions given to the candidates inter alia also provided the penal consequences for the candidates failing to abide by the same. Furthermore, the instructions therein was to prohibit the writing of role number by the candidate anywhere, thereby not to attempt disclose identification of the candidate to ensure the fairness in the examination. The facts and context in the controversy in the said case were different, not to apply to the facts of the present case. 5.1. Adverting to the appreciation of rival contentions, the ground of delay raised by the respondents was feeble in as much as, the petition was filed after reasonable swiftness when the information under the Right to Information Act sought for by the petitioners became available to them. At the same time, the submission of learned Government Pleader could well be countenanced that the entire edifice of the case was put up on a general collection of facts and the pleadings put-forth were also of generalised in nature. Necessary details were not available to make out a case in law. At the same time, the submission of learned Government Pleader could well be countenanced that the entire edifice of the case was put up on a general collection of facts and the pleadings put-forth were also of generalised in nature. Necessary details were not available to make out a case in law. In such background, it was difficult to come to a crystallize conclusion that prejudice in which way and of what nature occurred to the rights of the petitioners. 5.2. But then, there exist is a weightier ground to answer the case of the petitioners to render it meritless for grant of relief. It is not the case of the petitioners that their answer-sheets papers were examined as per the instructions, whereas the private respondents' answer papers were examined in breach of the instructions to later's benefit. Nor such case could be demonstrated or established by any pleading or any material on record. In other words, the case could not be made out on the basis of the record that in respect of some candidates the examination of answer-sheets were contrary to the instructions and in respect of some it was in compliance with the instructions. 5.3. All the examinee candidates were treated alike in the matter of examination of their respective answer-sheets and the assessment of the answers, may be in breach of the instructions so as to examine all the answers and options and to give marks for the correct answers therefrom. The breach, if was committed, was committed in respect of all uniformly. Differently speaking, the petitioners are not able to place their case on the platform of Article 14 of the Constitution. The case and the controversy pertained only to breach of instructions in the examination of answer-sheets, and the answer-sheets of all the candidates were treated in breach of the instructions. 5.4. In the obvious circumstances discernible that all examinee candidates treated similarly in the matter of examination of their answer-sheets and all answers, irrespective of breach of the instructions to examine the required answers as given serially, a right would accrue a candidate to get marks for correct answers he or she had attempted correct. 5.4. In the obvious circumstances discernible that all examinee candidates treated similarly in the matter of examination of their answer-sheets and all answers, irrespective of breach of the instructions to examine the required answers as given serially, a right would accrue a candidate to get marks for correct answers he or she had attempted correct. It cannot happen, when all the candidates were treated in equal manner in examination of their answer-sheets, that a segment of them are deprived of their marks for the answers correctly attended but falling outside serially as not required to be examined as per the instructions. 5.5. Right to be assessed equally and to earn the marks for the questions attempted correct, would on the contrary flow from the tenets of Article 14 of the Constitution. Right to receive marks for the correct answers, when all the examinees are equally treated in the matter of manner of examination of answers and for the assessment, would be a right to ripe from Article 21 of the Constitution as well. 6. When all the candidates were examined for their answer-sheets in the same manner and in similar fashion, there cannot result a prejudice to anybody. All acted equally and all would be required to be treated equally. It would be a part of fair assessment for them to be entitled to the marks for correct answers, irrespective of the aspect that the assessment was uniformly done divorced from the instructions by examining the all answers to all questions attempted. Once the premise of equal treatment is obtained and to be applied, the entire case of the petitioners that injustice was done due to non-compliance of instructions and examination of all answers, would nose-dive to become meritless. 6.1. Even if the candidates in respect of examination of whose answer-sheets, the instructions were followed and the candidates in whose case the instructions were not followed, could be viewed to be grouped in two different classes, the petitions would not book for grant of any relief in absence of specific details as to how the each of the petitioner vis-à-vis candidate concerned who may have been selected, came to be examined and assessed. The details given are too vague to be appreciated for the purpose of coming to a conclusion about discrimination. Furthermore, any mala fide-either malice in law or malice in fact-have not been alleged. The details given are too vague to be appreciated for the purpose of coming to a conclusion about discrimination. Furthermore, any mala fide-either malice in law or malice in fact-have not been alleged. Viewed from any standpoint, the petitioners have failed to establish their case and to discharge the burden to prove that prejudice occurred to them in the matter of examination assessment of answers. 7. In view of foregoing discussion and reasons, the petitions are not liable to be entertained and no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Resultantly, all the petitions are hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim orders are vacated. There shall be no costs. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS In view of dismissal of the petitions, Civil Applications do not survive for any order.