Gujarat High Court
Bhojabhai Lagdhirbhai Boricha vs The State Of Gujarat on 18 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/669/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 669 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15346 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 669 of 2025
==========================================================
BHOJABHAI LAGDHIRBHAI BORICHA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. G.H. VIRK GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS. MAITRI MODI AGP for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK(11607) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, tendered by learned Government Pleader Mr. G.H Virk, is ordered to be taken on record, which has been filed pursuant to the order dated 13.6.2025. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the present appellant seeking following prayers:
"(A) Quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the learned Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 21:16:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/669/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15346 of 2024, Annexure A to this appeal, and (B) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourbale Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of the appellant that no marks are assigned to the answers question Nos. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.10 as well as to the answer to question Nos. 2(A) and 4(B) are insufficient. In question Nos. 2(A) and 4(B), the examiner who assessed the paper has granted 6 marks each. Pursuant to the order dated 13.6.2025, in order to see that, the appellant is not ousted and declared failed on an absolute illegal ground/reason vide called for necessary information. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board wherein it is explained thus :
5. Question 1.1. required the Petitioner to answer as to what is the maximum House Building Advance that can be approved. The Petitioner's answer to this question is Rs. 15,00,000/- and the Petitioner argues that this is the correct answer in view of the Finance Department's G.R. dated 01.05.2015. However, the reliance placed by Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 21:16:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/669/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined the Petitioner is on an old G.R. The latest G.R. of the Finance Department in this regard, is the G.R. dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure-X1) which clearly states that the maximum house building advance that can be given is an amount equivalent to basic pay of 34 months or the estimated value of the house/flat or Rs. 25,00,000/-, whichever is lower. Therefore, the Petitioner's answer to question 1.1. is, respectfully, incorrect.
6. This latest factual position was, in fact, to the knowledge of the Petitioner, as is evident from the Petitioner's letter dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure - X2).
7. Question no. 1.2 required the Petitioner to explain the process of verification of cash balance by the Head of the Office. The Petitioner had only indicated the provision number without explaining the process and, therefore, the Petitioner's answer to question no. 1.2 is, respectfully, wrong.
8. Question no. 1.10 required the Petitioner to answer as to who is authorized to sanction House Building Advance. The Petitioner's answer to this question is that the head of the department is authorized to sanction the house building advance. The correct Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 21:16:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/669/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined answer as per the Gujarat Financial Rules, 1971 (and not "1972" as stated by the Petitioner) is that the Head of the Department and the Regional Head is authorized to sanction the House Building Advance. This is evident from the contents of page no. 46 of the SCA. The answer to question no. 1.10 is, therefore, respectfully, wrong.
9. Question nos. 2(A) and 4(B) were questions for 10 marks each in which the Petitioner scored 6 marks each. It is, respectfully, impossible for the present Deponent to step into the shoes of the expert evaluator and arrive at a subjective satisfaction apropos the marks given to question no. 2(A) and 4(B).
3. The appellant had appeared in the pre- service training examination held for the post of Accounts Clerk. The examination was an open book examination. He was declared unsuccessful which constrained him to file the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge has rejected the same by observing thus :
"6. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material on record and this Court finds that the examination, i.e. Paper No.2, in which the petitioner has failed, was an open book examination, where, answers Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 21:16:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/669/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined were to be given in descriptive mode / method and the evaluation of such answer-sheets is done by the persons, who are experts in their own subject and who have awarded marks, as per their subjective satisfaction and therefore, this Court not being an expert in the filed of accounts, it is not open for this Court to go behind the evaluation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner and to decide, as to whether, the marks awarded by the concerned expert to the petitioner is proper or not. 6.1 Insofar as the aspect of giving benefit of grace marks to the petitioner, as per Clause-(2) of the GR dated 26.08.2022 is concerned, which, provides that if, a person has cleared five papers and has failed only in one subject, then, such a person shall be entitled to get maximum 5 marks as grace in the concerned subject. Now, Clause-3 of the GR dated 26.08.2022, clearly provides that the provisions of the said GR shall be applicable only in case of the examinations, which are to be conducted for departmental promotions in the future.. In other words, the provisions of GR dated 26.08.2022 are to be made applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Since, the examination of the petitioner was conducted prior to the publication of the GR dated 26.08.2022, the same shall not apply in the case on hand Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 21:16:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/669/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025 undefined and the petitioner cannot be given 5 grace marks, as per the said GR.
7. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs."
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid explanation we are not inclined to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal more particularly in wake of the settled legal position that in the case of reassessment of marks in the competitive examination in fact the Court cannot exercise the assessment and substitute the assessment of experts by its own wisdom. Hence the Appeal fails and the same is rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) MARY VADAKKAN 1 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 21:16:50 IST 2025