Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1812 (GUJ)

PARTH MANISHKUMAR PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2024-09-04

A.Y.KOGJE, SAMIR J.DAVE

body2024
JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.06.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 7813 of 2023. 2. The issue at the root is the claim of the appellants for additional marks for the answers given by them to two particular questions in the preliminary objective test conducted as a part of recruitment to the post of Assistant Forest Officers by the State through the GPSC. According to the appellants, the key answers to the two particular questions where wrong whereas the answers given by the appellants were right and therefore the appellants were entitle 2 to additional marks. 3. By an order dated 20.06.2023, in an interim application with the present appeal, the appellants were permitted to appear in the main examination which was scheduled the very next day that is on 21.06.2023. Accordingly, all the appellants had appeared in the main examination however pending the appeal their results were not declared along with the results of the main examination. 3.1 Another interim application was filed by the appellants seeking interim direction to declare the results of all the appellants. This prayer so that in case the appellants are declared to have cleared their main examination also then they may appear in the interview which are scheduled to start from today that is second September 2023. 4. This Court in its order dated 22.08.2024 called upon the respondent–GPSC to produce in sealed cover the result of the main examinations. Accordingly, in two-LPA, the present one and LPA No. 783 of 2023, the GPSC has placed the outcome of the appellants in the sealed cover. 4.1 The sealed cover was opened in the open Court and as per the contents of the results, it is revealed that the sole appellant of LPA No. 783 of 2023 was declared as ‘not eligible for interview’. The said appeal came to be disposed of by a separate order. 4.2 Similarly, in the present appeal, there were 15 original appellants and 16th appellant was added upon amendment. The sealed cover was opened in this appeal also and the same revealed 14 of the appellants was declared ‘not eligible for interview’, whereas two appellants; appellant Nos.15 and 16 were found ‘eligible for Interview’. 4.2 Similarly, in the present appeal, there were 15 original appellants and 16th appellant was added upon amendment. The sealed cover was opened in this appeal also and the same revealed 14 of the appellants was declared ‘not eligible for interview’, whereas two appellants; appellant Nos.15 and 16 were found ‘eligible for Interview’. In view of this development, the appeal qua appellant No. 1 to 14 will be rendered only academic as they have not cleared the main exams. 4.3 Learned Advocate for the appellants therefore is unable to pursue the appeal for appellant Nos.1 to 14 any further, but has prayed the appeal be examined on merits qua appellant Nos.15 and 16. 5. At the outset, the Court may observe in the chronological progress of these matters; the petition is filed at 11th hour creating artificial urgency; then making interim application seeking directions to allow the appellants to appear in the forthcoming stage of the recruitment process. The GPSC conducted prelim exams on 30.10.2022 for two papers in General studies, on 01.11.2022 provisional answer key was published, objections were received and final answer key was published on 07.02.2023 and on 10.03.2023, result of prelims was declared. The Special Civil Application was filed on 06.04.2023. The Special Civil Application was taken up on 15.06.2023 and on 16.06.2023, the petition stood rejected. The main exam was conducted on 21st, 23rd and 24th June, 2023. The petitioners filed the present LPA on 20.06.2023 and were permitted circulation on the same day i.e. on 20.06.2023 and this Court passed an order on 20.06.2023 by way of interim relief permitted the appellants to appear in main exam without creating any right or equity. 6. Accordingly, the appellants appeared on 20.07.2024 and list of eligible candidates for interview was declared. Again an interim application was filed on 30.07.2024 praying to call for results of appellants in sealed cover and permit the appellants to appear in interview scheduled. 6.1 This application, filed on 30.07.2024, was for the first time listed on 22.08.2024 and this Court forthwith passed the order to produce result of the appellants in sealed cover. It is pertinent to observe that the interview was scheduled to begin on 02.09.2024 and hence, interim prayer to permit the appellants to appear in the interview. 7. In view of aforesaid fact situation, it would be appropriate to take up the appeal for final hearing. 8. It is pertinent to observe that the interview was scheduled to begin on 02.09.2024 and hence, interim prayer to permit the appellants to appear in the interview. 7. In view of aforesaid fact situation, it would be appropriate to take up the appeal for final hearing. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellants has argued on behalf of the appellants No. 15 and 16 that the answers given by the appellants to two questions in the prelims exam, the appellants gave the correct answers, whereas the answers in the key answer are incorrect. 8.1 Learned Advocate has argued that learned Single Judge ought to have considered the demonstrable material to ascertain the correct answers. It is submitted that appellants had produced material in form of the Answer Key of an another exam, for recruitment of Engineers conducted by this very GPSC and in that exam, the same question was asked, where the answer in Key answer was the same answer given by the appellant. 8.2 It is submitted that in case of the 2nd question also, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the material in the form of the content of the official website of IUCN, which matches of the answer of the appellants then that of the Answer Key. 8.3 It is submitted that the appellants were short of 0.6 marks to get the minimum qualifying marks and if even one answer out of the two answers is declared Right, the appellant will qualify to appear in the Main exams, which also appellants have cleared. 8.4 Learned Advocate has cited the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 to submit that it is open for the Court to examine demonstrable material to ascertain correct answers. 8.5 Learned Advocate has cited decision of this Court in case of Sandhya Naranbhai Maru Vs. Secretary Gujarat Panchayat passed in Special Civil Application No. 14870 of 2015 and allied matters dated 19.02.2016 and submitted that the Court was considering an identical question pertaining to length of river and concluded in favour of the petitioners. 9. 8.5 Learned Advocate has cited decision of this Court in case of Sandhya Naranbhai Maru Vs. Secretary Gujarat Panchayat passed in Special Civil Application No. 14870 of 2015 and allied matters dated 19.02.2016 and submitted that the Court was considering an identical question pertaining to length of river and concluded in favour of the petitioners. 9. As against this, learned Advocate for the GPSC has submitted that the GPSC has followed the procedure by calling upon the candidates to submit their objections after publishing answer key, but the petitioners did not raise any objections to the Answer key. Thereafter, the final key was published still no objection was raised. 9.1 It is submitted that still all the objections were referred to the Experts and Experts have submitted their opinion, which the learned Single Judge has rightly considered to reject the petition. 9.2 Learned Advocate has relied upon the decision of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (2018) 7 SCC 254 and Special Civil Application No. 11978 of 2022 dated 17.08.2022. 10. In rejoinder, learned Advocate has argued that the appellants did raise objections to the Key answers published and drew attention to Annexure-L to show the objections raised in there two questions. 10.1 Learned Advocate has also tried to place on record the material available on the website regarding IUCN and submitted that the website information referred to in impugned order is not accurate. It is also submitted that the Expert opinion relied was not available to the appellants otherwise the appellants would have filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the GPSC. 11. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the case record of Special Civil Application does indicate that the Affidavit in reply was filed on 15-06-2023 and the matter was taken up on 16-06-2023, but the appellants did not seek any time for filing any rejoinder, so at this stage in Appeal, this contention cannot be entertained. Moreover, the material regarding website information today shown by the appellants was never before the learned Single Judge. Hence, the contention also cannot be accepted. 12. The main contention of the correct answers to the questions. The two questions were from the multiple choice questions, asked in Prelim exams for the subject of G.S.-I and G.S.-II. “81. Moreover, the material regarding website information today shown by the appellants was never before the learned Single Judge. Hence, the contention also cannot be accepted. 12. The main contention of the correct answers to the questions. The two questions were from the multiple choice questions, asked in Prelim exams for the subject of G.S.-I and G.S.-II. “81. Which is the longest and the shortest river of Gujarat?” (A) Sabarmati and Aji (B) Tapi and Purna (C) Narmada and Aji (D) Tapi and Shetrunji “160. The “RED DATA BOOK” published by the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources contains the lists of: 1. Endemic plants and animal species present in biodiversity hotspots. 2. Endangered/threatened plant and animal species 3. Protected sites for conservation of Nature and Resources in various countries. Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (A) 1 and 3 only (B) 1 only (C) 2 and 3 only (D) 2 only” 12.1 For Question-81 as per Answer Key, correct answer is Option (C) whereas claim of the appellants is Option (A), for Question-160 as per Key Answer, correct answer is Option (B) and as per the appellants, it was option (D). 13. It is a case where total number of posts advertised were 38, wherein the applications from interested candidates were called between 15.07.2022 to 30.07.2022. Thereafter, the preliminary test was conducted on 30.10.2022 in which total 63398 candidates appeared and on the next day 01.11.2022 the provisional answer key was published and online objections with regards to the provisional answer key were invited from the candidates from 02.11.2022 till 08.11.2022. The respondent- Commission received online objections by way of 220 applications with regards to 58 questions of paper-I whereas in respect of paper-II, 260 applications with regards to 77 questions were received. Accordingly, all the objections were forwarded to the experts for their opinion which were scrutinized by the experts in detail and after thorough scrutinization of the objections, experts sent their opinion to the respondent- Commission and on that opinion, the respondent-Commission published the final answer key on 07.02.2023, wherein 8 & 7 questions respectively in paper I & II were cancelled and 9 & 7 answers were revised qua paper I & II respectively. After receiving objections against Final Answer Key, the respondent-Commission after scrutiny of the by expert opinion further cancelled 1 question and changed answer in 1 question in paper 1 and published Provisional result of Eligible Candidates for appearing in the mains examination on 10.03.2023, wherein the appellants have been found to be ineligible. 14. The Court has considered the contentions that objection of the appellants were not considered. The appellant has drew specific attention to Annexure-L, which are the set of representations /objections by the individuals, but there are no representations/objections raised by any of the two appellants herein. 15. One such objection by another candidate regarding Question No. 81 was attached with the material in support of the appellants answer regarding the length of River Narmada and Sabarmati (See-90). 16. This material gives detail of river Narmada having its origin of ‘Amarkantak’ situated in Chattisgarh State. Page-90 is completely illegible document. Therefore, the Court has relied upon the submission made in this regards by learned Advocate for the appellants. 17. The contention of the answer-key of another exam by very GPSC for Engineering exam for the same question. It would be pertinent to refer to Annexure-N (Page-16). However, the question asked in that Question Paper is Question No. 263, which reads as under: “263. The longest river in Gujarat is” 18. Here also the representation was made by candidates of that exam and after the objection, the preliminary Answer key was changed. However, the question being different, the Court would not consider it a material sufficient to counter the opinion of the Experts. 19. Similarly, the question regarding the material relied by the appellants on same question asked by GPSC and the Answer key to it. 19.1 However, the learned Single Judge had, in front of it, the opinion of the Expert. The learned Single Judge, in this connection has considered Expert Committee opinion and held in Para-10 and 11 as under: “10. Considered the submissions and perused the documents taken into consideration by the expert committee for their opinion on the objections from the candidates. In relation to question No. 81 “Which is the longest and shortest river of Gujarat”, the committee has considered the details provided on the website of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited wherein it is referred as under: “Narmada is the longest river in Gujarat. In relation to question No. 81 “Which is the longest and shortest river of Gujarat”, the committee has considered the details provided on the website of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited wherein it is referred as under: “Narmada is the longest river in Gujarat. It rises from the Amarkantak Plateau in Anuppur district of Madhya Pradesh. It forms a very traditional boundary between North and South India by flowing westwards over a length of approx. 1312 km. It drains through the Gulf of Khambhat into the great Arabian Sea. Remarks - The Narmada, the largest west flowing river of the Peninsula rises near Amarkantak range of mountains in Madhya Pradesh. It is the fifth largest river in the country and the largest on in Gujarat.” 11. In relation to question No. 160 “The RED DATA BOOK published by International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources contains the list of?” the expert committee for their opinion has relied upon website of International Union of Conservation of Nature Resources (IUCN) wherein it has been referred as under: “The ‘Red Data Books’ published by the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) contains list of Endemic plant and animal species present in the biodiversity hotspots. Remarks - “The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global extinction. It divides species into nine categories: Not Evaluated, Data Deficient, Least Concern, Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the Wild and Extinct.” 20. Before the learned Single Judge, there was no other demonstrable material which will challenge the opinion of experts and hence, the impugned judgment needs no interference. 20.1 There are more reasons for the Court not to accept the case of the appellants as none of the appellant Nos.15 and 16 made any representation/objection to the preliminary answer key within the period specified, i.e. between 02.11.2022 to 08.11.2022 and the only representation by appellant No. 15 was dated 23.03.2023, which was much beyond the time prescribed by the GPSC. 21. Having perused the impugned judgment and the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge as also the reasons assigned herein, the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal and challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2023. 22. 21. Having perused the impugned judgment and the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge as also the reasons assigned herein, the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal and challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2023. 22. The outcome of the mains exam qua the appellants be once again placed in sealed cover and returned to learned Advocate for GPSC. It is open for the appellants to request for these documents of sealed cover from the GPSC as and when requested for. The GPSC to provide the same in accordance with law. 23. In the issue of correcting the key answers upon the petitions filed by handful candidates under Article 226, the Court needs to have one more perspective which the Court may discuss in specific facts of this case. Even if the contention regarding the correct answer to the two questions in MCQ in prelims exam is considered then it would affect two sets of large sections of candidates. The candidates who have given same answer as the petitioners, they also deserve to be given same treatment. They cannot be precluded from such benefit just because they have not approached the Court. The another set of candidates are those who answered correctly as per the answer key. These candidates will stand to loose their marks to their detriment. Question is can there be two correct answers to one question? If so, in absence of their presence before the Court to justify their answer, may lead to causing injustice to such candidates and result in complete overhaul in the selection list for interview, which the Court finds completely unwarranted in the facts of this case. 24. The appeal stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.