Gujarat High Court
Lakhan Vanmalidas Hariyani vs Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12513 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12513 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd./-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LAKHAN VANMALIDAS HARIYANI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BH KHER(6027) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SANDIP H MUNJYASARA(10781) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE, ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the
Respondent(s) No. 10,11,3,4,5,6,7,8
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
MR GURSHARANSINGH VIRK, MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK(11607) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 28/04/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, appearing for the petitioners, learned GP, Mr. Virk, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Ramparia, for Respondent No.1-Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board (in brief, 'GSSSB'), learned AGP, Ms. Pancholi, for Respondent No.2 and learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Raol, for the private respondents.
Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined
2. Pursuant to the filing of Civil Application (For Vacating Stay) No. 1 of 2026, since, the learned Advocates for the parties requested that the main matter, itself, be heard finally, this matter was taken-up for hearing and final disposal, today.
2.1 Hence, RULE. Learned Advocate, Ms. Ramparia, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Virk, learned AGP, Ms. Pancholi, and learned Advocate, Ms. Raol, waive service of rule for the respective Respondent.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs;
"9. ...
A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to hold that the question Nos. 64, 116, 189 and 197 are ambiguous and further be pleased to quash and set aside the Revised Final Answer Key dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure-G) qua question Nos. 64, 116, 189 and 197 in the interest of justice; C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined setting aside the Final Select List dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure-J) in the interest of justice;
D. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the answers as provided by the petitioners to the question Nos. 64, 116, 189 and 197 as correct and further direct the Respondent No.1 to revise the final select list accordingly;
E. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to form an Independent Expert Committee to obtain an opinion on the ambiguity in formation of the question Nos. 64, 116, 189 and 197 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to accept the opinion such committee in the interest of justice;
F. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further recruitment process for the post of Research Assistant and Statistical Assistant, Class-III in the interest of justice;
G. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to obtain independent expert opinion from experts with regards to the ambiguity in question Nos. 64, 116, 189 and Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 197 of the question paper;
H. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other appropriate orders as deemed fit in the interest of Justice. "
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are as under;
The petitioners, herein, applied for the post of Research Assistant & Statistical Assistant, Class-III, pursuant to an advertisement published by Respondent No.1-GSSSB on 01.01.2024, bearing Advertisement No. 226/2023-24, as they are possessing all the requisite qualifications.
4.1 Thereafter, the petitioners appeared in the written examination, which was conducted on 20.03.2025 and which consisted total 210 Multiple Choice Questions ('MCQs', in short). As per the aforesaid advertisement issued by Respondent No.1-GSSSB, the candidate, who secures minimum 40% marks, was to be included in the merit list.
4.2 Respondent No.1-GSSSB published provisional answer-key on 21.03.2025 and it also provided a time-line, between 22.03.2025 to 28.03.2025, inviting suggestions and objections from the candidates with regard to the same.
Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 4.3 After the receipt of objections and suggestions from the candidates, Respondent No.1-GSSSB revised answers to 21 questions and published Revised Provisional Answer Key on 30.05.2025. This time also Respondent No.1-GSSSB provided a time-line, between 31.05.2025 to 06.06.2025, inviting suggestions and objections from the candidates.
4.3.1 Since, the present petitioners were not satisfied with the answers to four questions in the Revised Provisional Answer Key, they raised objection on 04.06.2025.
4.4 Respondent No.1-GSSSB published Final Answer Key on 31.07.2025 and revised answers to 09 questions. This time also, the petitioners raised objections qua three questions on 01.08.2025. Thereafter, Respondent No.1- GSSSB published Revised Final Answer Key on 08.08.2005, wherein, answers to 02 questions were revised.
4.4.1 Here, it may be noted that, though, the aforesaid facts may give an impression that, in all, answers to 32 questions were revised by Respondent No.1-GSSSB, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, appearing for the petitioners, at the time, when this judgment was being dictated, demonstrated that, in fact, answers to only 22 questions were revised by Respondent No.1-GSSSB and therefore, Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined though, the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs are correct, by way of revision of various answer-keys, at last, answers to 22 questions were revised by Respondent No.1- GSSSB.
4.5 The final merit-list, based on Final Answer Key, was published on 14.08.2025.
4.6 All the petitioners, i.e. three in numbers, belong to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (hereinafter, referred to as 'SEBC') and the cut-off marks for the the SEBC (Common) category was 141.7225, whereas, the cut- off marks for the SEBC (Female) category was 130.5537.
4.6.1 As against the aforesaid cut-off marks, petitioner No.1 obtained 139.9827 marks, petitioner No.2 obtained 141.5503 marks and petitioner No.3 obtained 128.3949 marks and their names appears at Sr. Nos. 25, 15 and 108 in the list of unsuccessful candidates, who were called for scrutiny of documents, respectively. Here, it may be noted that Respondent No.1-GSSSB had published a separate list, containing the names of the candidates, who were declared successful and whose names were recommended for appointment on the posts in question.
4.7 By way of this petition, initially, the petitioners had challenged answers to total four questions, i.e. question Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Nos. 64, 116, 189 and 197. However, when the order dated 29.09.2025 was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners did not press objections qua answers to question Nos. 64 and 116. Further, at the time of hearing of this matter before this Court, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, appearing for the petitioners was fair enough to submit that the petitioners shall not be pressing their objections even qua answer to question No. 197 and hence, the entire petition shall now revolve only around the objection of the petitioners qua question No. 189 only and proposed answers to the same.
4.7.1 At this stage, it was also indicated on behalf of the Respondent-State that even at the time of issuance of notice and the grant of interim relief, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Paragraph-3 of its order dated 29.09.2025 observed that the challenge to question No. 197 is not entertained. But, the same will have hardly any effect, as today, at the time of dictation of this judgment, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, under the instructions, specifically submitted that the petitioners do not press into service any objection qua question No. 197. Hence, this petition would, now, survive qua objection to question No. 189 and the answer thereto, only. Question 189 and its proposed answers read as under;
"189. ...Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined What is the relationship between demand and price?
(A) Constant (B) Direct
(C) Inverse (D) Uncertain"
4.8 According to the petitioners, the correct answer of
question No. 189 is (B), i.e. "Direct", whereas, according to Respondent No.1-GSSSB and the Respondent-State, the correct answer of question No. 189 is (C), i.e. "Inverse".
4.9 It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had attempted the question No. 189 and they had given answer (B), i.e. "Direct", and therefore, if, that answer is to be treated as correct, then, in that case, petition Nos. 1 and 3 shall succeed. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he had not answered or attempted question No. 189, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition and therefore, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, under the instructions, submitted that in above view of the matter, this petition would survive only qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.
5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions;
(i) Respondent No. 1-GSSSB had conducted an examination in the year 2016 for the very same posts, Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined wherein, similar kind of question was asked and at that time, in the final answer-key, answer 'B', i.e. "Direct", was shown to be the correct answer and as the principle of economy would not change within a few years, the answer to the question No. 189, i.e. "What is the relationship between demand and price?", asked in the year 2016, if, the answer 'B', i.e. "Direct", was held to be the correct answer, the answer to the very same question would not become 'C', i.e. "Inverse", in the year 2024 and the Respondents could not have taken a different stand in the year 2024, then, the stand taken by them in the year 2016. At the relevant point of time, i.e. in the year 2016, the answer-key was revised thrice and the Respondents stuck to answer 'B', i.e. "Direct", and therefore, when the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have answered question No. 189, as answer 'B', i.e. "Direct", they are required to be given the marks for the correct answer, which would change their merit and therefore, the Respondents are required to be directed to consider answer 'B', i.e. "Direct", as the correct answer of question No. 189;
(ii) It was, further, submitted that when the Respondents, themselves, have revised the Provisional as well as the Final Answer-Key for nearly four times, whereby, answers to as many as 22 questions were Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined revised, pursuant to the objections were raised qua answers to 32 questions, and whereby, the answers to almost 22 questions were revised, the entire examination system can be said to be erroneous and therefore, when there were multiple errors were found in the answer-keys and when there is an ambiguity qua answers to some of the questions, keeping in mind the answer-key of the year 2016 and the answer-key of the year 2024, the benefit of such doubt must go in favour of the candidates, as it is the question of their carrier, and not in favour of the Respondents;
(iii) Learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, relied on the various material produced by him on the record in support of his submissions and urged that the correct answer to question No. 189 is 'B', i.e. "Direct", as the relationship between the price and demand is direct and therefore, now, it is not open to the Respondents to state that the answer to question No. 189 is 'C', i.e. "Inverse". Thereby, it was submitted that even as per the version of the Respondents, on the basis of the material produced on the record by them, which is with regard to the law of demand, whereas, question No. 189 pertains to the relationship between the 'Demand' and 'Price' and both of them cannot be said to be the same, but, they are different aspects. Therefore, when Respondent No.1-GSSSB, itself, is Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined confused about 'Law of Demand' and the relationship between the 'Demand and Price', the benefit of such doubt must go in favour of the candidates, i.e. petition Nos. 1 and 3, herein;
(iv) Today, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1- GSSSB produced on record an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1-GSSSB, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.04.2026, which is with regard to certificate related to the expert's opinion dated 25.09.2025 and in that regard, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, submitted that as the opinion of the expert is not produced on the record and only an affidavit is filed today, the same cannot be taken into consideration, as the same is nothing but an eye-wash;
5.1 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & Others Vs. Samir Gupta & Others', (1983) 4 SCC 309, and more particularly the observations made at Paragraph-13 and submitted that in that case opinion of the expert was produced on the record, whereas, in this case, the opinion of the expert is not produced on the record and therefore, the stand taken by the Respondents-authorities, by way of filing an affidavit, Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined cannot be said to be a genuine document related to the expert's opinion and therefore, on that ground, itself, the present petition is required to be allowed.
5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, next, placed reliance on the decision of the Orissa High Court, rendered in the case of 'Jyotirmayee Dutta Vs. State of Odisha & Others', in Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 21703 of 2024, Dated:
03.02.2025, and submitted that this Court has ample powers to refer the disputed questions to a committee of the experts constituted by Court and in the instant case also, the Court is required to form a committee of the experts and to refer the disputed question to the committee, instead of believing the version of the Respondent-authorities. It was also submitted that when the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of 'Jyotirmayee Dutta' (Supra) was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same was dismissed.
5.3 It was also submitted by learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, that the opinion of the expert, which was shown to this Court on 23.04.2026 is dated 25.09.2025 and though, the present petition was filed in August, 2025, and the certificate was issued by the expert in September, 2025, the Respondents remained totally silent about the same all this time and the same is produced before this Court belatedly, i.e. after the delay of about nine months, on Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 28.04.2026 and the same would amount to overreaching the process of law and suppression on the part of the Respondents-authorities and therefore, this Court may not take into consideration the opinion of the expert, which is not produced on the record of the Court and merely was shown to the Court by filing an affidavit.
5.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph- 30.2 of its decision, rendered in the case of 'Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another', (2018) 2 SCC 357, which was relied on and produced by the Respondent-State at the time of arguments, and submitted that, if, a statute, rule or regulation governing an examination does not permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny of an answer-sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny, only if, it is demonstrated clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalism" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.
5.4.1 By relying on the aforesaid decision, it was submitted that this being a rare and exceptional case, wherein, there are contradictions in the answer-key published by the Respondent No.1-GSSSB, itself, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Constitution of India and may form a committee of experts to redress the grievances of the petitioners.
6. Learned GP, Mr. Virk, appearing with learned AGP, Ms. Pancholi, made following submissions;
(I) In the matter of examination, related to recruitment for public service, the scope of interference by the Courts is minimum, as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions;
(II) The judgments governing the law relating to the examination in respect of recruitment provides that in case of confusion or doubt, the version of the examining body is to be considered to be true. It was, further, submitted that the present petitioners and other similarly situated candidates raised grievances about answers time and again and every time, their grievances were resolved, which resulted into correction of as many as 22 answers and therefore, the entire process was done with utmost transparency;
(III) The present petitioners having failed to secure the cut-off marks are now trying to justify their cause by stating that the answer given by them to question No. 189 be treated as correct, but, this Court may not do it in view of the fact that the interference in an Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined examination related to recruitment process is not approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court, except, when the exceptional circumstances are there.
6.1 Learned GP, Mr. Virk, placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions;
(1) 'Ran Vijay Singh' (Supra);
(2) 'Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission through Its Chairman & Another Vs. Rahul Singh & Another', (2018) 7 SCC 254;
(3) 'Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another', (2010) 6 SCC 759;
(4) 'Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others', (2021) 2 SCC 309;
(5) 'Maharashtra Public Service Commission through it Secretary Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary & Others', 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2979;
(6) 'Prema ram Patel & Others Vs. State of Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary & Others', 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 690;
6.2 By relying on the aforesaid decisions, it was reiterated that in case of doubt or confusion in respect of an answer, the answer of the examining body would become final and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the recruitment process and may dismiss this petition.
6.3 Lastly, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'Shubham Pal & Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Another' in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21999 of 2024, Dated: 03.02.2026, learned GP, Mr. Virk, submitted that in the matter of recruitment process, sympathy or compassion has no role to play and the Court should loath on directing re-evaluation of the answer-sheets and thereby, it was prayed that this petition be dismissed.
7. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Raol, for the private respondents, more or less, adopted the submissions made by learned GP, Mr. Virk, and submitted that the law on the subject is very clear and this petition be dismissed.
8. In rejoinder, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the decision of Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of 'Shubham Pal & Others' (Supra) shall not apply to the facts of this case and as this Court has ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to order reevaluation of the mark-sheet, because the basic aim is to dig out the truth and as the answer given by the petitioner, prima facie, is correct and therefore, this petition may be allowed.
9. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have also perused the material on record and though, lengthy arguments were made, the issue involved in this petition runs in a very narrow compass and the only question this Court is required to consider is, as to whether, this Court can go into the aspect of correctness of answer to question No. 189 or not, which is already reproduced herein above. According to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, the relationship between the demand and price is 'Direct', whereas, as per the say of the examining body and the State, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the correct answer is 'Inverse'. Both the sides have produced various material to indicate that the correct answer would be, as per the stand taken by them in this petition. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another' (Supra) and more particularly the observations made in Paragraph- 15, which reads thus;
Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined "15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh case SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32) "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.
Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 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 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."
Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 9.1 Even, in Paragraph-30.3 in the case of 'Ran Vijay Singh & Others' (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under;
"30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; "
9.1.1 In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as reproduced herein above, this Court cannot be said to be an expert on the subject and hence, I do not propose to go into the aspect, i.e. which answer can be said to correct or which answer can be said to be incorrect. Therefore, this matter is required to be considered from the view point or the angle, as to whether, it is permissible for this Court to interfere with the recruitment process, which is under challenge on account of issue of correctness of answer to question No. 189.
9.1.2 In wake of the above decision relied on by learned GP, Mr. Virk, as this Court is not an expert of the subject, this Court cannot go into the aspect of correctness of answer to question No. 189 on its own.
9.2 Further, when the petitioners and the respondents both have produced different versions of the same answer, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-30 to 30.5 in the case of 'Ran Vijay Singh & Others' (Supra), which read thus;
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny 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 that a material error has been committed;
30.3 ...
30.4 The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. "Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 9.3 The conjoint reading of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraphs- 30.3, 30.4 and 30.5, as reproduced herein above, it becomes clear that the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Therefore, when there are two versions available, which would imply that there is doubt about the correctness of the answer, then, such presumption shall go in favour of the examining body and therefore, the reply provided to question No. 189, by way of Revised Answer- Key, by the Respondent-authorities can be presumed to be correct. Hence, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered for awarding them additional 01 mark, by arriving at the conclusion that the answer given by petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is correct.
9.4 As far as the reliance placed on by learned GP, Mr. Virk, on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Shubham Pal & Others'(Supra) is concerned, in Paragraph-12 thereof, the Apex Court has observed that;
"12. Having given our thoughtful consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the view that we should not interfere in the matter. As held by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this Court also said that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. In these types of cases sympathy or compassion have no role to play. Courts should be very loath in matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet."
9.5 The above observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment would also indicate that the Hon'ble Apex Court, by relying on the decision in the case of 'Ran Vijay Singh' (Supra), has held that in case of doubt, the benefit should go in favour of the examining body and not in favour of the candidates, as in this type of cases sympathy or compassion has no role to play and the Courts should be very loath in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet.
9.6 In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it becomes clear that once the revised answer-key is published, ordinarily, unless something exceptional is shown, the Courts should not interfere with the answer provided by the examining body and therefore, this Court is not required to interfere with the recruitment process by interfering with the correctness of the answer to question No. 189.
Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined 9.7 As far as the prayer about the forming of a committee of experts is concerned, though belatedly, but, the Respondents had produced expert's opinion before this Court on 23.04.2026 and the same was also made available for perusal to learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, appearing for the private respondents. After going through the aforesaid expert's opinion on 23.04.2026, this Court had passed following order;
"1. During the course of the argument, learned Government Pleader Mr. G. H. Virk produced a certificate dated 29.09.2025 issued by the Chairman, Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board, Gandhinagar, regarding the opinion given by experts in respect of Question No. 189, which is the subject matter of controversy in the present petition. The question pertains to the relationship between demand and price. According to the petitioner, the correct answer is that there is a direct relationship between demand and price, whereas according to the respondent Board, the relationship between demand and price is inverse.
2. In the handwritten opinion, a scanned copy of the said opinion was also shown to the Court, indicating that the relationship between demand and price is inverse and, therefore, answer C is correct. However, since the aforesaid Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined certificate, according to learned Government Pleader Mr. G. H. Virk, is a confidential document, it may not be directed to be placed on record. The respondents are directed to file an affidavit in respect of the aforesaid certificate and the conclusion of the expert. Such affidavit shall be filed before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 27.04.2026."
9.8 In compliance of the aforesaid order, today, learned AGP, Ms. Panchal, tendered an affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.1, Dated: 27.04.2026, and the relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit reads thus;
" ...
1. I am the duly authorized signatory of GSSSB in Special Civil Application No. 12513 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as "captioned Petition"); and I have perused the contents of the said captioned Petition and being conversant with its facts, I am filing the present Additional Affidavit in compliance of the Oral Order dated 23.04.2026.
2. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the contentions and averments raised before this Hon'ble Court in relation to Question No. 189 of the exam held on 20.03.2025 for the posts of Research Assistant and Statistical Assistant -- Class III, the Chairman - GSSSB, confidentially sought an expert opinion apropos the said question.
3. After receiving the said opinion, the Chairman - GSSSB Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined issued a Certificate dated 29.09.2025, enclosing the opinion of the subject expert. A perusal of the opinion, which has submitted for perusal of the Hon'ble Court along with the Certificate of the Chairman -- GSSSB, would disclose that the subject expert has stated that the correct answer is (C) Inverse and in support thereof, has provided a detailed explanation and finally, arrived at a conclusion that "demand & price OR price and demand are inversely related"'. It is respectfully submitted that in the Final Answer Key published by the GSSSB, the correct answer to question No. 189 is also provided as (C) Inverse.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the Certificate dated 29.09.2025 along with the hand written opinion of the subject expert was produced before this Hon'ble Court on 23.04.2026, for the kind perusal and consideration of this Hon'ble Court. It is respectfully submitted that due to the confidential nature of the opinion, the same is not being produced by way of the present Additional Affidavit. "
9.9 Considering the fact that the expert's opinion along with certificate was made available for perusal of this Court and on the basis of the same aforesaid affidavit is filed and as the same was also shown to the learned Advocates for the parties, there is no question of disbelieving the opinion of the expert. Further, when the law is very clear that even in case of doubt, the benefit must go in favour of the Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12513/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined examining body and not in favour of the candidate, the prayers made in this petition cannot be granted and the same are require to be rejected.
9.10 In view of the above, as this Court has a very little scope of interfering with the answer provided by the Respondent-authorities by way of answer-key, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Though, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners disputed even the opinion of the expert, this Court is of the view that when the petitioners are doubting every single material produced by the Respondent-authorities, the same would not up-turn the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Ran Vijay Singh' (Supra).
10. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
10.1 In view of the dismissal of the main matter, Civil Application for stay shall not survive and the same also stands disposed of, accordingly.
11. At this stage, learned Advocate, Mr. Munjyasara, appearing for the petitioners made a request to stay this order for a period of one week. However, such a request is rejected. No order as to costs.
Sd./-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) UMESH/-Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 00:45:34 IST 2026