Gujarat High Court
Virendrasinh Chandubha Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12100 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12100 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13228 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIRENDRASINH CHANDUBHA VAGHELA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR GURSHARANSINGH VIRK, WITH AGP, MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK, MS RUCHI RAMPURIA, MS MAITRI MODI,
(11607) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the
petitioners, learned GP, Mr. Virk, appearing with learned
AGP, Ms. Pancholi, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
learned Advocate, Mr. Simranjitsingh Virk, for Respondent
No.3 in each petition and learned Advocate, Mr. Rindani, for
the applicants in the application for joining party.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
2. By way of Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of
2025, the applicants, therein, have prayed to join them as
party-respondents in the main matter, i.e. Special Civil
Application No. 12100 of 2025.
2.1 In view of the fact that learned Advocates appearing for
the Respondents did not seriously oppose the aforesaid
application, the same is allowed. The applicants are
directed to be joined as party respondents in Special Civil
Application No. 12100 of 2025. Necessary amendment be
carried out, forthwith. Civil application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
3. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing
for the parties, both the petitions are taken-up for final
hearing and disposal today. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP, Ms.
Pancholi, waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
learned Advocate, Mr. Simranjitsingh Virk, waives service
for Respondent No.3 in each matter and learned Advocate,
Mr. Rindani, waives service for newly joined respondents in
Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025.
4. By way of Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025,
the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs;
"9. ...
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
(A) Direct the respondent No.3 - GSSSB to give
additional marks to the petitioners for having answered
correctly the questions referred to in the petition, and
consequently direct the GSSSB to revise the final result
considering the fact that the petitioners have correctly
answered the above referred questions and thereby direct the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners
for appointment to the post of Police Sub Inspector, Class-III
by way of promotion through special competitive
examination pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-C to
this petition, or in the alternative
(B) Quash and set aside the final answer keys to the above
referred questions stated in the grounds of this petition and
direct the respondent No.3 GSSSB to publish the revised
result with the corrected answer keys, and
(C) Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated
12.8.2025, Annexure-A to the petition, and
(D) Constitute a committee consisting of experts in the field
to decide the correctness or otherwise of the final answer
keys prepared by the respondent No.3 for the above referred
questions, and
(E) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the
Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
No.3 - GSSSB to permit the petitioners to participate in the
subjective type examination for appointment to the post of
Police Sub Inspector, Class-III by way of promotion through
special competitive examination pursuant to the
advertisement at Annexure-A to this petition, and
(F) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the
Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for
awarding additional marks to the petitioners for having
attempted the question/s, and
(G) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the
Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to constitute a committee consisting of experts in
the field to decide the correctness or otherwise of the final
answer keys prepared by the respondent No.3 for the above
referred questions, and
(H) Award the costs of this petition, and
(I) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the
Honourable Court may consider as just and proper."
4.1 Since, the reliefs prayed for in Special Civil Application
No. 13228 of 2025 are almost identical, they are not
reproduced.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
5. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 13228 of
2025 are almost identical to the facts of Special Civil
Application No. 12100 of 2025, except, the aspect that some
of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12100 of
2025 had earlier preferred a petition, i.e. Special Civil
Application No. 6560 of 2025, which came to be disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025, whereby, the
petitioners therein were directed to make a representation to
the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievances
and as their representation is rejected, they preferred
Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025. Learned GP,
Mr. Virk, also brought to the notice of this Court the fact
that the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 13228 of
2025 are fence-sitters, who did not do anything after the
declaration of the results and only after the filing of Special
Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025, they joined the cause of
the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12100 of
2025.
5. In view of the above, the facts are drawn from Special
Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025, which read as under;
5.1 Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the
respondent-authorities on 14.02.2022, for filling-up the post
of Reserve Police Sub Inspector / Armed Police Sub
Inspector, Class-III (including Gram Rakshak Dal, Bomb
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Detection and Disposal Squad, Quick Response Team and
Drill Instructor) in Gujarat State Police Services, the
petitioners applied for the same. Multiple Choice Questions
(MCQs) type examination for the same was conducted by
Respondent No.3 - GSSSB, but, on account of pendency of
various litigation, the results could not be declared till
March, 2025.
5.2 On publication of the answer-key, some of the
petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025
challenged the same by way of Special Civil Application No.
6560 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by this Court
vide order dated 08.05.2025, while permitting the
petitioners to make a representation to the respondent -
authorities for redressal of their grievances.
5.2.1 Pursuant to the above, some of the petitioners in
Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025 made a
representation in respect of 37 questions. However, the
aforesaid representation made by the concerned petitioners
in Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025 came to be
rejected vide communication dated 12.08.2025 and
therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present
petitions, challenging the same.
6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the
petitioners, who have challenged 23 questions in these
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
petitions, out of total 37 questions, which were subject-
matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 6560 of
2025, made the following submissions;
(1) The questions, which are subject-matter of
challenge and for which a revised answer-key was
provided by the concerned respondents, are such that
even revised answer-key appears to be incorrect;
(2) The revised answer-key not only contains
incorrect answers, but, certain questions were out of
syllabus and therefore, this Court may either refer
those questions to a committee of experts, which may
be constituted by the High Court, and direct them to
verify the correctness of all the answers and as to
whether, the questions, which were asked in the
MCQs examination, were asked from within the
syllabus or not;
6.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, also took this Court
through the record and made elaborate submissions, with
regard to all the questions, which were subject-matter of
challenge before this Court in earlier round of litigation, so
as to demonstrate that either the answers certified by the
experts, as can be seen from the impugned communication
dated 12.08.2025, were incorrectly evaluated by them or
there are contradictions between the actual reference books
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
and the re-evaluation done by the experts and the same
suffers from typographical errors, as well. Therefore, the
answers to questions asked in the MCQs type examination
cannot be termed as the correct answers, but, the same can
be treated as nearly correct answers and therefore, such
questions could not have been considered for counting
marks and those questions are required to be removed /
deleted and the benefit of marks of such erroneous
questions should be given to the candidates.
6.2 During the course of his lengthy submissions, learned
Advocate, Mr. Vyas, also took this Court through most of
the questions and the answers, as per the revised answer-
key, experts' opinion and the material, on which the experts'
relied. However, since, those aspects are touching the
factual matrix and the same can be said to be disputed
questions of facts, this Court is not elaborating those
submissions, which related to various questions, in this
order.
6.3 When this Court asked learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, as
to what is the scope of interference by this Court in exercise
of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a
recruitment process, more particularly, in respect of a
competitive examination, he fairly submitted that the scope
of judicial intervention in respect of an examination, which
was undertaken for the purpose of a recruitment drive, is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
limited. However, according to learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas,
the intervention of this Court is required in the case on
hand, so as to ensure that the ends of justice meet and also
to ensure that, in a case, where the answers suffer from the
complete absurdity and when the Court can see that the
answers are incorrect and still the respondent-authorities
construe that the answers are correct, in that case, to
prevent the abuse of process of law, this Court can
intervene to the extent of securing the ends of justice and
with a view to ensure that no injustice is caused to the
meritorious candidates.
6.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the
petitioners, in support of his submissions, placed reliance
on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the
case of 'Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor &
Others Vs. Samir Gupta & Others', reported in (1983) 4
SCC 309, as well as on the decision of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of 'Sandhya Naranbhai Maru Vs.
Secretary, Gujarat Panchayat & Others', Dated:
19.02.2016, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 14870
of 2015 and the allied matters.
6.4.1 By relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of 'Kanpur University through Vice
Chancellor & Others' (Supra), more particularly, the
observations made in Paragraphs-16 to 18 thereof, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Advocate, Mr. Vyas, submitted that in respect of answers
provided by way of answer-key, while examining the
answers, if, there is a case of doubt, the answer-key can be
considered. But, when there is a matter, which is beyound
realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students /
candidates for not giving the answer, which accords with
the answer-key or the answer, which is demonstrated to be
wrong.
6.4.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, on the basis of the
aforesaid decision submitted that in the instant case also,
there are certain questions for which, there cannot be any
other answer, other than the answer given by the
candidates is possible and despite that, the answers given
in the answer-key are considered and therefore, this is a fit
case for intervention by this Court by exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, then, relying on the
decision in the case of 'Sandhya Naranbhai Maru'
(Supra), submitted that this Court vide its decision dated
19.02.2016 considered certain answers and while disposing
of the said petition, issued a direction that the answers
given by the petitioners be looked into and the mistakes be
rectified at the earliest and after the same is done,
appropriate marks be adjusted and ultimately after
correction of marks, if any of the petitioners find place in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
the merit-list, then, they shall be placed accordingly.
6.5.1 However, upon perusal of the aforesaid decision,
when this Court put a query as to whether, was that a case
where, at any point of time, the answers were re-evaluated
by the experts', learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, was fair enough
to state that in the case of 'Sandhya Naranbhai Maru'
(Supra), there was no occasion for the experts to re-evaluate
the answers and therefore, experts' opinion was not
available and in those particular circumstances, the Court
had considered it fit to enter into the arena of examining the
questions and its proposed correct answers. Learned
Advocate, Mr. Vyas, however, by relying on the aforesaid
decision submitted that this Court has ample powers to
interfere with the correctness of the answers, if, it causes
prejudice to the candidates and when no other answer can
be possible, than the one, which is provided by the
candidates and therefore, this Court may exercise the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
may allow these petitions in terms of the reliefs prayed for,
therein.
6.6 Lastly, learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, submitted that
there were certain questions, which were out of syllabus, as
according to him there was a question relating to Chapter-2
of the Gujarat Police Manual, whereas, as per the
curriculum given Gujarat Police Manual, Part II, was stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
therein and according to learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, the
concerned question would fall within Chapter-I and
therefore, the same can be said to be out of syllabus and
therefore also, as the question was asked out of syllabus,
the same would amount to illegality and therefore the
benefit of such question should go to the petitioners.
6.7 In nutshell, according to learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas,
though, no mal practice is alleged against the respondent-
authorities in these petitions, as the fault lies with the
answer-key and the revised answer-key, which do not
match with the answers given by the petitioners, though,
according to the petitioners, except, for the answers given
by them, no other answer could have been possible and
therefore, the interference at the hands of this Court is
warranted and these petitions may be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned GP, Mr. Gursharansingh
Virk, appearing with learned AGP, Ms. Pancholi, for the
Respondent-State vehemently opposed these petitions and
submitted that the issue, which is being agitated by the
petitioners by way of these petitions, is beyound the scope
of jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
7.1 It was, further, submitted that Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, of course, gives wide powers to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
High Courts, but, in the case on hand, by incorporating the
prayers in these petitions, which are already reproduced
herein above, the petitioners are seeking judicial review of
the correctness of the answers given by them in the
examination for the purpose of recruitment.
7.2 It was submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of
litigation, i.e. while disposing of Special Civil Application
No. 6560 of 2025 vide order dated 08.05.2025, some of the
petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025
had made a representation, whereby, some of the petitioners
in Special Civil Application No. 12100 of 2025 and other
candidates had raised grievance about as many as 37
questions. Aforesaid representation was considered by the
Respondent-authorities and those questions were, then,
refereed to various experts for their opinion.
7.2.1 Learned GP, Mr. Virk, submitted that, of course,
the expert's opinion is a confidential opinion and that
cannot be shared with the petitioners, however, for perusal
of this Court, he has kept the original files readily available
and he even offered, at one point of time during the course
of argument, that the Court may examine the original files,
which contained the opinion of the experts and on the basis
of which the experts have opined that the revised answer-
key and the answers to all the 37 questions, about which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
the grievance was raised by the petitioners, were found to be
in order and none of the questions was found to be having
any incorrect answer or out of syllabus, as per the revised
answer-key.
7.3 It was also submitted that the experts, in all 37 in
numbers, have examined all the 37 questions and have
formed an opinion that the answer to none of the questions
suffer from any infirmity or defect or the same is incorrect
and therefore, this Court may not sit in appeal over the
opinion of the experts, especially, when the experts have
examined the grievance of the petitioners and have formed
an opinion, this Court may not interfere with the opinion of
the experts and thereby, may not exercise jurisdiction,
which is not vested in this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
7.4 It was also submitted that the aforesaid proposition of
law is time and again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in various decisions, right from the year 2010, wherein, the
decision relied on by learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, in the case
of 'Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor &
Others' (Supra) has also been considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and in the matter of mass public recruitment,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a view that even if, there
is some element of incorrectness, all the applicants /
candidates shall be uniformly affected by the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
7.5 Learned GP, Mr. Virk, in support of his submissions,
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
rendered in the case of 'Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Another', reported in
(2010) 6 SCC 759, and more particularly the observations
made at Paragraphs-16 to 20 thereof and submitted that it
is not permissible for the High Court to examine the
question papers and answer-sheets, itself, when the inter se
merits of the candidates has been assessed. If, there was a
discrepancy in framing of a question or evaluation of the
answers, it would be for all the candidates appearing in the
examination and not only for a handful candidates. Further,
where, the answers are examined by the experts, there is no
scope for interference left for this Court to re-evaluate the
evaluation already done by the experts of the concerned
subjects.
7.6 Learned GP, Mr. Virk, next relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'Ran Vijay
Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others',
reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, and by relying on the
observations made in Paragraphs-31 and 32 thereof, it was
submitted that because of an error committed by the
examining authorities, the entire body of the candidates
would suffer uniformly and therefore, the entire
examination process is not required to be de-railed only on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
account of some candidates, who are dissatisfied or
disappointed or who perceive that some injustice is caused
to them by erroneous questions or erroneous answers. In
such cases, all the candidates would suffer equally and
though, some of them might suffer more, but, in such cases,
at the best, such questions can be excluded from being
considered. However, in the instant case, as per the opinion
given by the experts, no error is committed by the
examining body and therefore, the question of excluding
certain questions from consideration would not arise in this
case.
7.6.1 By relying on Paragraph-32 of the aforesaid
decision, it was submitted that, while considering the
grievance of the petitioners, the Court also must not forget
the efforts put-in by the successful candidates, while
interfering with the examination process.
7.7 Learned GP, Mr. Virk, also submitted that the present
petitioners have approached this Court in respect of an
examination, which was conducted long back and only after
the revised answer-key were supplied. In fact, according to
learned GP, Mr. Virk, the petitioners in Special Civil
Application No. 13228 of 2025 were fence-sitters, who never
agitated any grievance before this Court or the concerned
authorities about the correctness of the answers and it is
only after the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
12100 of 2025 approached this Court, they joined them at a
later stage, i.e. after about five months from the date of
declaration of the results and therefore, this Court may not
entertain the present petitions and may not encourage the
fence-sitters, who did not raise any grievance about either
mode or method of the exam or about the questions /
answers till the filing of Special Civil Application No. 12100
of 2025 by the petitioners, therein.
7.8 According to learned GP, Mr. Virk, in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to herein above
as well as in view of the recent decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of 'Ashaben Manabhai
Chaudhari Vs. State of Gujarat & Another', rendered in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 746 of 2025, Dated: 25.06.2025,
wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that
the Courts should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer-sheets of the candidates, since, it has no expertise
in the matter and the academic matters are best left to the
academicians and the Court should presume the
correctness of the answer-key and proceed on the said
assessment. The Division Bench has further held that in the
event of doubt, the benefit should go in favour of the
examining body, rather than the students / candidates.
7.8.1 By relying on the above referred decisions, it was
prayed that, as the present petitions are preferred with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
oblique motive and with a view to stall the recruitment
process, this Court may dismiss the same.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
have also perused the material on record and I find that the
grievance raised by the present petitioners is essentially
about the correctness of the answers provided in the revised
answer-key and about the inclusion of certain questions,
which according to the petitioners, were out of syllabus.
8.1 Insofar as, the scope of judicial review in respect of
correctness of the answers is concerned, the decision relied
on by the learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, in the case of
'Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor & Others'
(Supra), provides a very little scope of interference and that
too in certain particular circumstances. In the aforesaid
decision in Paragraph-17, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
thus;
"17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board
Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for
admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are
prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such
knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from
what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support
the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we
would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the
matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords
with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is
demonstrated to be wrong."
8.2 As regards the reliance placed on by learned Advocate,
Mr. Vyas, on the decision in the case of 'Sandhya
Naranbhai Maru' (Supra) is concerned, learned Advocate,
Mr. Vyas, himself, conceded before this Court that it was
the case, wherein, answer-sheets were not re-evaluated by
the experts, whereas, in the present case, the answer-sheets
are re-evaluated by the experts and the aspect of
correctness of the revised answer-key was also re-evaluated
by the experts and therefore, the facts of the aforesaid case
being different from the case on hand, I do not propose to
deal with the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision in
detail, as the same is totally different.
8.3 Now, if, the decision in the case of 'Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission' (Supra), relied on by learned
GP, Mr. Virk, is concerned, in Paragraphs 16 to 20 thereof,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under;
"16. It is settled legal proposition that the court cannot
take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authorities.
17. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr P.
Sambasiva Rao & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 499, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
held that in a case where the relief of regularisation is
sought by employees working for a long time on ad hoc
basis, it is not desirable for the Court to issue direction
for regularisation straightaway. The proper relief in
such cases is the issuance of direction to the authority
concerned to constitute a Selection Committee to
consider the matter of regularisation of the ad hoc
employees as per the Rules for regular appointment for
the reason that the regularisation is not automatic, it
depends on availability of number of vacancies,
suitability and eigibility of the ad hoc appointee and
particularly as to whether the ad hoc appointee had an
eligibility for appointment on the date of initial as ad hoc
and while considering the case of regularisation, the
Rules have to be strictly adhered to as dispensing with
the Rules is totally impermissible in law. In certain
cases, even the consultation with the Public Service
Commission may be required, therefore, such a
direction cannot be issued.
18. In Government of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Hanichal Roy &
Anr., (1998) 6 SCC 626, this Court considered the case
wherein the High Court had granted relaxation of
service conditions. This Court held that the High Court
could not take upon itself the task of the Statutory
Authority. The only order which High Court could have
passed, was to direct the Government to consider his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
case for relaxation forming an opinion in view of the
statutory provisions as to whether the relaxation was
required in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issuing such a direction by the Court was illegal and
impermissible. Similar view has been reiterated by this
Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha
Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr., AIR 1994 SC
2148; and A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative
Societies & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112.
19. In G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd.,
AIR 1952 SC 192, the Constitution Bench of this Court
while considering the case for grant of permits under
the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that
High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of
the Transport Authority, but issuing the direction for
grant of permits was clearly in excess of its powers and
jurisdiction.
20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the
High Court to examine the question paper and answer
sheets itself particularly, when the Commission had
assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there
was a discrepancy in framing the question or
evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the
candidates appearing for the examination and not for
respondent no.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
High Court was examining the answer sheets relating
to law. Had it been other subjects like physics,
chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to
understand as to whether such a course could have
been adopted by the High Court."
8.3.1 In Paragraph-26 of the aforesaid decision, while
considering various decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under;
"26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the
effect that in absence of any provision under the
Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court
should not generally direct revaluation."
8.4 The conjoint reading of Paragraphs- 16 to 20 & 26 of
the aforesaid decision would indicate that it is
impermissible for the High Courts to examine the question
papers and the answer-sheets by itself and even if, there
was a discrepancy in framing of a question or evaluating the
answers, it would affect all the candidates equally, who
appeared in the examination, and not to a particular class
or group or section of the candidates. However, it is held by
the Apex Court that in absence of there being any specific
provision in the statute or statutory regulations, the Court
should not generally direct re-evaluation of the answer-key
or the answer-sheets.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
8.5 In Paragraphs- 31 and 32 of the case of 'Ran Vijay
Singh & Others' (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under;
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of
directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The
entire examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice
having been caused to them by an erroneous question
or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally,
though some might suffer more but that cannot be
helped since mathematical precision is not always
possible. This Court has shown one way out of an
impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several
decisions of this Court, some of which have been
discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in
the result of examinations. This places the examination
authorities in an unenviable position where they are
under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a
massive and sometimes prolonged examination
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While
there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous
effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be
forgotten that even the examination authorities put in
equally great efforts to successfully conduct an
examination. The enormity of the task might reveal
some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must
consider the internal checks and balances put in place
by the examination authorities before interfering with
the efforts put in by the candidates who have
successfully participated in the examination and the
examination authorities. The present appeals are a
classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart
from the examination authorities even the candidates
are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of
the result of the examination - whether they have
passed or not; whether their result will be approved or
disapproved by the Court; whether they will get
admission in a college or University or not; and whether
they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory
situation does not work to anybody's advantage and
such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being
worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all
this is that public interest suffers."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
8.5.1 While making the submissions, learned GP, Mr.
Virk, had also pointed out that in Paragraph-19 of the
aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already
considered the decision in the case of 'Kanpur University
through Vice Chancellor & Others' (Supra). Paragraph-19
of the aforesaid decision runs as under;
"19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta3 this Court
took the view that:
"16... the key answer should be assumed to be
correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it
should not be held to be wrong by an inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to
be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no
reasonable body of men well-versed in the
particular subject would regard as correct."
In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that
too without any inferential process or reasoning. The
burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and
the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in
entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key
answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court
recommended a few steps to be taken by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
examination authorities and among them are: (i)
Establishing a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any
ambiguity in the questions, including those that might
be caused by translation; and (iii) Prompt decision be
taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be
assigned to it."
8.6 The aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court would indicate that the Courts must be extremely
cautious in entertaining the plea challenging the
correctness of the answer-key. From the aforesaid
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be
seen that re-evaluation of the answer-key is impermissible
and further, if at all, there is an erroneous answer, all the
candidates would suffer equally and therefore, such
reevaluation is impermissible.
8.7 Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in
Paragraph-8, in the case of 'Ashaben Manabhai
Chaudhari' (Supra), has made following observations;
"8. Thus, the Supreme Court has cautioned the Courts
about interference of the results in the examinations. It
is held by the Supreme Court that the Courts should not
at all revaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of the
candidates since it has no expertise in the matter and
academic matters are best left to academics and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption. It is further
held that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go
to the examination authority rather than to the
candidate."
8.8 If, the decisions cited by both the sides are taken into
consideration together, it would indicate that, while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has very limited jurisdiction / scope to re-
evaluate the answer-key / answer-sheet, more particularly,
when the answers are already re-evaluated by the experts.
Since, the same would amount to sitting in appeal over the
re-evaluation done by the experts, which is not permissible.
Further, even if, there is some minor error or incorrectness
in the answers provided in the answer-key, it will not only
be the present petitioners, who would be the sufferer, but,
all other candidates would also equally suffer the same on
account of such an error or incorrectness in the answer-key
and for which, only in case the experts opine that a
particular question / answer was incorrect, it is always
open to the examining body to cancel that particular
question / answer and to give necessary marks to all the
candidates, who had attempted such a question, on pro-
rata basis.
8.8.1 In the instant case, even the experts have not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
opined that any of the answers suffers from any defect /
incorrectness and therefore, the exercise of aforesaid option
is out of question.
8.9 Insofar as, the grievance raised by learned Advocate,
Mr. Vyas, with regard to some out of syllabus question
asked by the examining body is concerned, the same is
factually incorrect. As, during the course of argument,
learned GP, Mr. Virk, had demonstrated that one of the
questions, i.e. about the percentage of strength of armed
police in the police force, pertained to Gujarat Police
Manual, Part I, which was mis-read or mis-interpreted by
the petitioners as Chapter-1 of the Gujarat Police Manual,
whereas, the question pertained to Chapter-2 and therefore,
when the petitioners have mis-read or mis-interpreted
Chapter-2 as Gujarat Police Manual, Part II, it cannot be
said that the said question was out of syllabus.
8.10 In view of the above discussion and considering
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand, when the grievances raised by the present petitioners
have already been examined by the experts, 37 in numbers,
and when the experts have examined each of the questions,
with regard to which the grievance was raised by the
present petitioners, and for which they have given their
reasons for their re--evaluation and for deciding the answer
to be correct by relying upon various reference books, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12100/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
grievance raised by the present petitioners cannot be said to
have any basis. Therefore, once the experts have re-
examined and re-evaluated the answer-key, this Court do
not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decision taken
or the opinion given by the experts.
9. In the result, both the petitions fails and the same are
dismissed, accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
UMESH/-
