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
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
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
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
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
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
