Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1977 (GUJ)

AMIRAJBHAI DINESHBHAI JYANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2024-10-24

ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE

body2024
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. 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 have preferred the present Writ Petitions. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the main grievance of the petitioners is in respect of assessment, evaluation and marking in the mains paper. He submits that the discrepancies can be divided in two main categories, i.e. (A) Arbitrary marking and Irregularity in marking, i.e. (i) where the answer given by the candidate is wrong, then also marks have been given. (ii) where the answer given by the candidate is correct, but marks have not been given. (iii) where the evaluator has not followed the guidelines. (ii) where the answer given by the candidate is correct, but marks have not been given. (iii) where the evaluator has not followed the guidelines. (iv) the evaluator has not even verified whether the answer given by the candidate is relevant/correct in context/in reference to the question asked AND (B) Common marking pattern. The learned senior counsel submits that in support of their claim, the petitioners have compiled and analyzed the answer sheets of over 93 petitioners who appeared in the main examination. The petitioners are ready and willing to submit all the answer sheets as and when required or called upon. The learned senior counsel submits that in about 12 cases, the answer to question No. 13.3.2 has been wrongly given by the candidates. The correct answer is “Bahuvrihi Samas” but the candidates have given the wrong answer as “Dwigu Samas.” He submits that despite the wrong answer being given, the candidates have been awarded the marks for such wrong answer. The learned senior counsel further submits that in about 16 cases, though the correct answer has been given to the question Nos. 13.3.1, 13.9.1, 13.7.1, 13.7.2 and 13.5.1, still, the petitioners have not been given any marks for the correct answer. The learned senior counsel further submits that in two instances of precis writing and essay writing, even though the candidates could not understand the question and wrote only partial answer when the question demanded elaborate answer, still the evaluator has awarded common marks without properly evaluating the answer. Similarly, the learned senior counsel has also shown the discrepancy with respect to the English Language Paper, where the marks have been awarded for wrong answer and in some cases, the evaluator has not verified whether the answer given by the candidate is relevant or correct in the context/reference to the question asked and the evaluator has not followed the guidelines. Similar discrepancies have been shown in Essay Paper as well as General Studies Paper 1 and General Studies Paper 2. With respect to the grievance of the common marking pattern, the learned senior counsel has sought to demonstrate the same from the Gujarati Language Paper, English Language Paper, Essay Paper, General Studies Paper 1, General Studies Paper 2 and General Studies Paper 3, where common marking has been done by the evaluator without individual assessment. With respect to the grievance of the common marking pattern, the learned senior counsel has sought to demonstrate the same from the Gujarati Language Paper, English Language Paper, Essay Paper, General Studies Paper 1, General Studies Paper 2 and General Studies Paper 3, where common marking has been done by the evaluator without individual assessment. Further, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the said irregularities, discrepancies and arbitrary marking method as highlighted from the answer sheets placed on record have undermined the integrity of competitive examination process. The said discrepancy violates the petitioners’ right to fair consideration for public employment. The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent No. 2 Commission lacks a standard operating procedure for evaluating or checking mains examination answer sheets. The learned senior counsel submits that the examination of answer sheets reveals multiple instances with respect to discrepancies in the examination and defeat the purpose of competitive examination and the recruitment process which aims to select the best candidates. He, therefore, submits that the examination process undertaken pursuant to the Advertisement No. 30/2021-2022 be declared arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (1) Rajesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2013 (4) SCC 690 (2) Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 (2) SCC 357 (3) Rishal vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, 2018 (8) SCC 81 (4) High Court of Tripura vs. Tirth Sarathi Mukerjee and Ors. 2019 (16) SCC 663 (5) Narynasinh Ishwarsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC Online Guj 3576 (6) Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Arvind Rai and Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 579 3.1 Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned senior counsel submits that in similar situation, the Apex Court has held that if a Statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet, then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly that a material error has been committed. Relying on the decisions, the learned senior counsel further submits that the Apex Court has held that where even though there is no provision for revaluation and it turns out that despite giving the correct answer, no marks are awarded, wide power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may continue to be available to such a candidate who, despite having given a correct answer, is treated as having given the wrong answer and disentitled to any mark. He, therefore, submits that this Court may kindly interfere with the examination process so conducted by the respondent No. 2 Commission and allow the prayers of the petitioners for undertaking fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates who have appeared in the main examination. The learned senior counsel further submits that the discrepancies so demonstrated by the petitioners are factual and this Court, by applying the principle of extrapolation, may interfere with the evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates in accordance with the standard operating procedure or general process of law. He submits that the prayer of the petitioners to undertake a fresh exercise of evaluation of answer sheets of all the candidates who have appeared in the main examination should be ordered. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Applications be allowed. 4. Per contra, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission submits that as per Rule 4 of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2017, the examination conducted by the respondent No. 2 Commission is to be held in two successive stages, i.e. (i) Preliminary Examination (Objective type) for selection of the candidates for the mains examination and (ii) Mains examination (Written and Interview Test) for the final selection of the candidates for the posts advertised as per the merit list. She submits that in the present case, the preliminary examination consisting of two papers came to be conducted and total 1,99,669 candidates appeared. The results of preliminary examination came to be declared and a total 5706 candidates were declared eligible to appear in the mains examination. The mains examination was descriptive examination and consisted of six papers, i.e. Gujarati, English, Essay, General Studies 1, General Studies 2 and General Studies 3. She submits that each paper consisted of 150 marks and there were total 900 marks. The mains examination was descriptive examination and consisted of six papers, i.e. Gujarati, English, Essay, General Studies 1, General Studies 2 and General Studies 3. She submits that each paper consisted of 150 marks and there were total 900 marks. She submits that the results of the mains examination came to be declared and a total 977 candidates were declared to be eligible to participate in the interviews and out of 977 candidates, a final select list of 183 candidates was published, who were recommended to the concerned posts as advertised. She submits that Rule 20 of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2017 provides the procedure for re-checking the marks of the answer sheets of the mains examination. That accordingly, the respondent No. 2 Commission called upon the candidates to apply for the mark sheets and for rechecking of the mark sheets. Pursuant thereto, total 393 candidates applied for rechecking of the mark sheets. She submits that out of 393 candidates, about 59 petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 941 of 2024 and 39 petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6062 of 2024 applied for obtaining the mark sheets, answer books and rechecking. She submits that rest of the petitioners did not even apply for rechecking. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that total 2391 candidates applied for the copy of the answer book and about 116 petitioners herein applied for the answer sheet. That after rechecking process, it was found by the respondent No. 2 Commission that 5 candidates had not been evaluated for three questions and accordingly, they came to be awarded the marks and a revised final merit list came to be prepared after such revision of marks. It is submitted that after the revision of such merit list and recommendation made by the respondent No. 2 Commission for appointing 183 candidates, the present Special Civil Applications have been preferred. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the reevaluation is not permitted as per the Rules or the Advertisement and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right to reevaluation. She submits that the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved persons and therefore also, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. She submits that the petitioners have failed to show any legal injury caused to them by not reevaluating the answer sheets. She submits that the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved persons and therefore also, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. She submits that the petitioners have failed to show any legal injury caused to them by not reevaluating the answer sheets. She submits that the petitioners are estopped from seeking prayers for the purpose of reevaluation of the answer sheets. She submits that the petitioners herein have appeared in the preliminary and mains examinations on the same sets of rules and being unsuccessful, they cannot challenge the same. She submits that as the present petitions have been filed after publication and recommendation of the final select list of 183 candidates who are eligible to be appointed to the concerned posts, the said 183 candidates were necessary party to the present petitions in light of the prayers prayed for and therefore, the petitions also suffer from non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the petitioners have produced the answer sheets of the third party candidates, who are not the petitioners to the present petitions, to show the discrepancy in general. She submits that 183 successful candidates ought to have been joined as petitioners in the present petitions. Further, the present petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the answer sheets of the third party candidates. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that out of 128 petitioners, 116 petitioners had applied for getting the answer sheets and only 10 answer sheets of the petitioners are being relied upon by the petitioners by way of chart in the Memo of the Petition. Therefore, it can be said that other 106 petitioners did not have any grievance with respect to marks awarded in their answer sheets. She further submits that two petitioners being petitioner Nos. 54 and 126 cannot have any grievance as their names have figured in the final list of 183 candidates. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that out of 128 petitioners, only 59 petitioners have applied for rechecking and rest of the petitioners have not even exercised their right for rechecking of their answer sheets. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the marks given with respect to total 13 questions, whereas the total questions, which are attempted in the mains (descriptive) exam was 3,77,445 questions. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the marks given with respect to total 13 questions, whereas the total questions, which are attempted in the mains (descriptive) exam was 3,77,445 questions. She, therefore, submits that even if assuming that there is a discrepancy with respect to 13 questions, the same cannot be extrapolated. She submits that the answer sheets of the third party candidates relied upon by the petitioners cannot be permitted as such answer sheets are not public documents and therefore, in absence of such candidates being not joined as party to the petitions, such answer sheets cannot be looked into at the instance of the present petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the claim of the petitioners that certain answers were attempted by the candidates, but the marks are not given and the same are being treated as answers not attempted, it is required to be noted that none of those candidates have applied for rechecking and therefore, now, such persons cannot have any right by way of present petitions to set aside the whole exercise. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners have raised a grievance with respect to the marks given to a candidate who had written about 9th schedule despite of the fact that the question was asked about 10th schedule of the Constitution of India. She submits that upon scrutiny, it is revealed that the said candidate could not clear the mains examination and he has also not applied for rechecking. Further, the said candidate is not a petitioner herein and therefore, the question cannot be evaluated at the instance of the present petitioners. She submits that as the said candidate is not qualified, no grievance could be raised with respect to such discrepancy by the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Court, while exercising discretionary and extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot scrutinize the answer sheets, which are examined by the examiners, who are specialized in the subjects. She submits that the Court will not sit in appeal over the decision of the examiner in giving the marks to the candidates. She submits that the Court will not sit in appeal over the decision of the examiner in giving the marks to the candidates. She submits that this Court should not exercise its extraordinary powers in favour of the petitioners who have not even applied for rechecking of their answer sheets as per the Rule which was the right available to the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that a grievance is raised by the petitioners that the answer given at page 174 is correct and despite the same, no marks are given to such candidate. In this respect, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that upon scrutiny of the original answer sheet, it is found that there is interpolation by the petitioner in the answer sheet with respect to question No. 13.10.1 at page 174 and such answer sheet is forged and tampered with. She submits that the petitioners are resorting to such document with a view to maintain the writ petitions and show the discrepancy and the same cannot be permitted. She submits that the petitions ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. In respect of the issue of reevaluation, the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the same. She has relied upon the following decisions: 1. (2004) 6 SCC 714 2. (2020) 6 SCC 362 3. (2020) 15 SCC 377 4. 2022 SCC Online SC 1520 5. (1984) 4 SCC 27 Further, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the decision wherein it has been held that the Court should not normally interfere with in such cases. She, therefore, submits that the present petitions are devoid of merits and the same cannot be entertained. She also submits that the same be dismissed also on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 5. Mr. Gautam Joshi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, who are being joined as party respondents and who are successful candidates in the present examination, has adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Manisha Lavkumar appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Commission. 5. Mr. Gautam Joshi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, who are being joined as party respondents and who are successful candidates in the present examination, has adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General Ms. Manisha Lavkumar appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Commission. In addition, the learned senior counsel submits that the prayers, as prayed for, are not maintainable as the petitioners have participated in the process and and after declaration of the final result and recommendation of the candidates to the State Government, the present petitions have been filed with a mala fide intention to set aside the whole process. He submits that the petitioners are showing the discrepancies with a prayer to extrapolate such discrepancy for setting aside the whole process and to reevaluate the answer sheets of all the candidates in the mains examination. He submits that even such right of rechecking has not been exercised by some of the petitioners and except two petitioners, rest of the petitioners are unsuccessful in the main examination. He submits that if this Court interferes on such frivolous grounds and especially in the case of the present petitioners, who have undergone the process of selection and remained unsuccessful, it would be travesty of justice. He further submits that the petitioners have not relied upon their own answer sheets, but seek to verify the answer sheets of some other candidates who are not the petitioners herein. The learned senior counsel further submits that the present Writ Petitions are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and the same cannot be permitted. He submits that the present Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and should be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record. 7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that all the petitioners herein had applied, appeared and participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the 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. All the petitioners herein cleared the preliminary examination held on 26.12.2021 and also appeared in the mains examination. All the petitioners herein cleared the preliminary examination held on 26.12.2021 and also appeared in the mains examination. Some of the petitioners became eligible to appear in the interview round and rest of them have been declared unsuccessful in the mains examination. Out of those petitioners who appeared in the interviews, the names of only two petitioners figured in the final select list which was recommended to the State Government for appointment. Rest of the petitioners have failed in the interview round. The petitioners thereafter have filed the present writ petitions with a relief for undertaking a fresh exercise of reevaluation of the answer sheets of all the candidates who appeared in the mains examination and to cancel the whole exercise undertaken pursuant to the preliminary examination. 8. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners have tried to demonstrate certain discrepancies which have appeared in the marking and evaluation of the answer sheets. These answer sheets are purported to have been obtained after applying for the copy of the answer book. Out of 128 petitioners herein, only 116 petitioners had applied for the answer book. Further, total 393 candidates had applied for rechecking of the answer sheets. 59 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 941 of 2024 and 39 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6062 of 2024 had applied for rechecking. Rest of the petitioners have not applied for rechecking of their answer sheets. In the rechecking process, some candidates have been awarded the marks for the answers which had remained unchecked and the same were also added to the total marks. The petitioners herein are relying on the answer sheets of some of the petitioners and in addition also, the answer sheets of those candidates who are not parties to the present petitions. 9. The preliminary examination came to be conducted for two papers. In Paper-I, 88,734 candidates appeared and in Paper-II, 86,144 candidates appeared. Therefore, total 1,74,878 candidates appeared in the examination. After the results of the preliminary examination came to be declared, total 5706 candidates were declared to be provisionally eligible to appear in the mains examination. The petitioners’ names figured in this provisional list of eligible candidates. Thereafter, the mains examination comprising of six descriptive papers, each carrying 150 marks, came to be held. All the petitioners have appeared in the mains examination. The petitioners’ names figured in this provisional list of eligible candidates. Thereafter, the mains examination comprising of six descriptive papers, each carrying 150 marks, came to be held. All the petitioners have appeared in the mains examination. These six question papers comprised about 77 questions in total and all the questions have been attempted by the candidates, who have appeared in the mains examination. 10. The Rule or the Advertisement does not permit reevaluation. Clause 23(5) of the Advertisement prohibits reevaluation and only permits rechecking of marks. Thus, all the petitioners are aware that there is no reevaluation of marks. Further, in respect of rechecking, only some of the petitioners have applied for the same. The petitioners have exhausted the remedies available to them for rechecking of the answer sheets. 11. The petitioners have placed on record certain answer sheets to demonstrate the discrepancies in the evaluation and marking of the answer sheets. On the basis of these discrepancies, the submission of the petitioners is that by the principle of extrapolation, this Court should assume that such discrepancy is prevalent in all the answer sheets and thereby the respondents be directed to reevaluate all the answer sheets and rehold the further process again. In this background, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners seek to rely upon 93 mark sheets. Some of these mark sheets belong to the petitioners. They also rely upon the mark sheets of some candidates who are not parties to the present petition. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have placed the same on record with a view to demonstrate that the discrepancies are across the board and hence, the principle of extrapolation needs to be applied. It is also pertinent to mention herein that all these answer sheets belong to the unsuccessful candidates who could not find a place in the interview round. Further, the petitioners have also not placed on record the answer sheets of the successful candidates and two of them are also purported to be the petitioners herein to demonstrate that such discrepancies have also crept in the answer sheets of the successful candidates. 12. Further, the petitioners have also not placed on record the answer sheets of the successful candidates and two of them are also purported to be the petitioners herein to demonstrate that such discrepancies have also crept in the answer sheets of the successful candidates. 12. The petitioners herein do not seek to redress their individual grievance, but seek the relief which is general in nature and it is claimed to be in the interest of all the candidates who have appeared in the mains examination with a prayer to undertake a fresh exercise of reevaluation of all the candidates who have appeared in the mains examination. Further, this relief has been sought after the final select list of the candidates has been recommended to the State Government for appointment and after the completion of whole exercise of recruitment. 13. The grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the discrepancies wherein (i) the answer given by the candidate is wrong, then also, the marks are awarded, (ii) the evaluator has given marks to some candidates and has not given to other candidates for the same answer, (iii) the answer given by the candidate is correct, but the evaluator has considered it as not attempted, (iv) the evaluator has misinterpreted and misunderstood and committed an error, (v) that there is a common marking pattern adopted by the evaluator, which is evident from the scrutiny of the answer sheets placed on record, wherein all the candidates, whose answer sheets are placed on record, have been awarded more or less marks without considering the substance or relevance of the answer. In all these discrepancies, the petitioners have relied upon about 4-5 answer sheets only for each of the discrepancies mentioned and involves about 5-6 questions in respect to each of the discrepancies. It is pertinent to mention here that in the mains examination, a candidate had to appear in six papers of descriptive nature, each paper consisting of 150 marks and the total marks for all six papers is 900 marks. There were 5712 registered candidates and around 4900 candidates appeared in six subjects and there are total 29,428 answer sheets which have been evaluated. There are total 77 questions in all six questions papers and the answers attempted by all the candidates in all six papers comes to 3,77,445. There were 5712 registered candidates and around 4900 candidates appeared in six subjects and there are total 29,428 answer sheets which have been evaluated. There are total 77 questions in all six questions papers and the answers attempted by all the candidates in all six papers comes to 3,77,445. Therefore, the evaluator has assessed a total of 3,77,445 answers written by about 4900 candidates. All these discrepancies, which are attempted to be shown, are very minuscule in number and may not be adequate to infer a common pattern of discrepancies amongst all the answer sheets so as to warrant interference of this Court by the principle of extrapolation. 14. Furthermore, the petitioners are relying on only 93 answer sheets out of 30,000 answer sheets to show these discrepancies on the ground that this is a unique case where every answer sheet is not available to the petitioners and therefore, the principle of extrapolation should be applied for resolving the issue in the present case. The said contention deserves to be rejected. The petitioners seek to rely upon 93 answer sheets. The answer sheets, which are relied upon, are only of those candidates who are unsuccessful. Even if the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted that there was no marking, wrong marking or less marking, then also, it has not been demonstrated to this Court that if such candidates would have been awarded the requisite marks, they would have qualified for the interview round. It is not the contention of the petitioners that due to such discrepancies, any of the petitioners has suffered by being declared unsuccessful, and that otherwise he would have been successful to be qualified for the interview round. Therefore, at the first blush, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that even if it is minuscule number of the answer sheets, as relied upon by the petitioners to show the discrepancies and to extrapolate to higher percentage may seem attractive, but the same is without merit. Similarly, such discrepancies in cases of some of the candidates who are not the petitioners or aggrieved by the same, is relied upon by the petitioners to magnify the same. Similarly, such discrepancies in cases of some of the candidates who are not the petitioners or aggrieved by the same, is relied upon by the petitioners to magnify the same. It is equally pertinent for the petitioners to show that such a discrepancy would have altered the list of successful candidates who have qualified for the interview so as to seek the relief of re-conduct of the mains examination. With these discrepancies, even if accepted on its face value, the petitioners have failed to show the material difference it may bring about in the results so declared by the respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission. In absence thereof, this Court cannot apply the principle of extrapolation and upset the process of recruitment at the behest of the petitioners as it would only be an assumption. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that such discrepancies could have altered the final results. Further, the petitioners herein have produced on record only the selective portion of the answer sheet without disclosing as to how much total marks such candidate had obtained in the mains examination and how at least in the case of the petitioners, the said discrepancies had materially affected their results. The petitioners have miserably failed to establish such facts and on the basis of few selected instances, they seek to unsettle the recruitment process which has attained the finality in view of the recommendation of 183 candidates for appointment. 15. The petitioners have placed on record their subjective assessment to counter the evaluation of the examiner who is supposed to be an expert in the said subject and has been appointed by the respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission. This Court, in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter into the exercise of reevaluation on the basis of the subjective assessment of the petitioners. It is not open for this Court to undertake such exercise. The reliance placed on the discrepancies in the awarding of marks with respect to wrong answers being given marks or the answers have exceeded the words limit prescribed under the question, cannot be magnified or extrapolated to assume and hold that the examiner has committed an error in assessment and evaluation of the answer sheets. The reliance placed on the discrepancies in the awarding of marks with respect to wrong answers being given marks or the answers have exceeded the words limit prescribed under the question, cannot be magnified or extrapolated to assume and hold that the examiner has committed an error in assessment and evaluation of the answer sheets. Even if assuming that such candidate had been given wrong marks, it would not make any difference in the results of the mains examination as the answer sheet relied upon is of unsuccessful candidate. This Court is of the opinion that placing reliance on such discrepancies cannot be generalized to unsettle the recruitment process. Except few incidents, as relied upon by the petitioners, which do not materially affect the results of the candidates, it would be hazardous to rely upon the same and apply the principle of extrapolation to hold that the whole recruitment process is affected by such discrepancies and should be quashed and set aside. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any common or consistent error in the method of evaluation, which would affect a large number of questions for applying the principle of extrapolation. 16. The extrapolation is an exercise which involves identifying and examining a properly representative set of sample allegations and extrapolating the results of the detailed investigation into the entire pool of allegations. The extrapolation serves as a statistical technique to estimate the value of data which is outside the range of known values and for predicting future outcomes. In other words, one can make intelligent guesses as to what lies ahead by examining how things would stand taking into account some variable. Though the extrapolation is used extensively for analyzing statistical data and predicting future behavior pattern on past information, the same may not be useful in the present situation as there is limited data and no future predictions. 17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of extrapolation cannot be applied beyond reasonable or rational limits and cannot be carried to absurd length so as to unsettle the examination process. Unsettling of results on trivial grounds is against the public interest. There could be some human errors committed while evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates. Such discrepancy may affect the candidate in whose answer sheet, such discrepancy has taken place. Unsettling of results on trivial grounds is against the public interest. There could be some human errors committed while evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates. Such discrepancy may affect the candidate in whose answer sheet, such discrepancy has taken place. In the present case, the discrepancies relied upon do not have any material effect on the results of the petitioners or other candidates whose answer sheets have been relied upon by the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 has onerous task of holding examinations and it may reveal some lapses, but the Court has also to consider the internal check and balance put in by the examination authority and therefore, the interference in such cases has to be minimal and negligible unless it is demonstrated very clearly that without any inferential process of reasoning, an error is committed so as to unsettle the whole examination process. In the present case, the petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate that such an error has been committed by the evaluator to hold that the entire evaluation process is erroneous and the mains examination be set aside. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2018 (2) SCC 357 has held that if a Statute, Rule or Regulation does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of answer sheet as a matter of right, it may be permitted only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases when a material error has been committed. In the present case, the entire examination process does not deserve to be unsettled only because the petitioners are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive that injustice has been caused to them by an erroneous evaluation of some questions. Further, the petitioners cannot take advantage of such errors by seeking application of principle of extrapolation. 19. In the present case, the petitioners also cannot be said to be the persons aggrieved so as to maintain the present writ petitions. The petitioners have failed to show any legal injury caused to any candidate on the face of it due to discrepancies in evaluation of the answer sheets. 19. In the present case, the petitioners also cannot be said to be the persons aggrieved so as to maintain the present writ petitions. The petitioners have failed to show any legal injury caused to any candidate on the face of it due to discrepancies in evaluation of the answer sheets. Though it is submitted that two of the petitioners have successfully cleared the examination in question and are successful in getting appointment, their answer sheets have not been relied upon to show any thread of error in the evaluation. Therefore, it cannot be held that there was any material error in the evaluation of answer sheets in the present recruitment process. 20. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners will have no application in the present case as the reliefs prayed for in the present case are in rem and not in personam and are based on the principle of extrapolation. 21. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prayers, as prayed for in the present writ petitions are not limited to individual grievance of the petitioners, nor the same are canvassed before this Court. In the present case, the petitioners have not challenged the scheme of the examination. They have participated in the whole process without raising any objection. It is well settled that it is not open for a candidate who has participated in the recruitment process to subsequently challenge the same once he has been declared unsuccessful. The petitioners herein do not espouse their personal grievance. The petitioners, in fact, are challenging the final result in the writ petitions and it is not open for them at this stage to submit that the principle of extrapolation should be invoked to set aside the final result. This law has now been well settled and crystallized in several decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. A candidate cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process of recruitment was unfair and that there was lacuna therein just because he has failed to figure in the final select list. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after the complete recruitment process is over and even the names of the candidates in the select list have been recommended to the State Government for appointment. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after the complete recruitment process is over and even the names of the candidates in the select list have been recommended to the State Government for appointment. Thus, the petitioners having participated in the recruitment process without any objection and subsequently having been declared unsuccessful, cannot challenge such a selection process and that too under the garb of right to fair consideration for public employment. 22. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the present Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for stay of the judgment for a period of four weeks so as to enable them to approach the higher forum. The said prayer is rejected.