Gujarat High Court
Anant Ajitbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 02/05/2025
Pronounced On :19/06/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10993 of 2013
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16252 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✔
=================================================== ANANT AJITBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================== Appearance:
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, Senior Counsel assisted by DR.ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. G.H. VIRK, learned GOVERNMENT PLEADER assisted by Mr. NIRAJ SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 =================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Abhisst K. Thaker, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in SCA No. 10993 of 2013 and Mr. Tejaskumar J.Page 1 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined Shah, learned advocate in SCA No. 16252 of 2013 and Mr. G.H. Virk, learned Government Pleader assisted by Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State as well as Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the respondent- GPSC in both the matters.
2. Both the captioned petitions challenge scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2 - Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) in recruitment for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-III, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2012 in SCA No. 10993/2013 and recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-II pursuant to advertisement published on 27.08.2012 by the respondent no.2 in SCA No. 16252/2013.
3. The grievances of the petitioners in both the captioned petitions are self-same and in view thereof, both the petitions are heard together and shall be governed by a common order.
4. The reliefs as prayed for in SCA No. 10993/2013 reads thus:
Page 2 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined "8. The petitioner therefore prays that:
(A) This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
(B) This Hon'ble court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the scaling formula adopted in the recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle pursuant to advertisement published in the Month of July, 2012 by the respondent no. 2 to be illegal.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the final list of successful candidates in the competitive examination for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector class-III published by the respondent no. 2 as the same is based on such illegal scaling formula adopted by respondent no. 2.
Or in the alternate D) This Hon'ble court will be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 to include the present petitioner in the final successful candidate's list and further recommend the name of present petitioner for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector class-III to the respondent no. 1 (E) Pending hearing till final disposal of the present petition This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue interim directions suspending the further operation of the action of the respondents of recruitment on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector class-III or further be pleased to direct the respondents to include the present petitioner in the final list of successful candidate for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector class-III (F) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant ad-
interim relief in terms of clause (E) of the prayer clause above mentioned.
(G) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require in the interest of justice."
5. The reliefs as prayed for in SCA No. 16252/2013 reads Page 3 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined thus:
"8. The petitioner therefore prays that:
(A) This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
(B) This Hon'ble court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the scaling formula adopted in the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspector pursuant to advertisement published on 27.08.2012 by the respondent no. 2 to be illegal.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the final list of successful candidates in the competitive examination for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector class-II published by the respondent no. 2 on 16.08.2013 as the same is based on such illegal scaling formula adopted by respondent no. 2.
Or in the alternate (D) This Hon'ble court will be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 to include the present petitioner in the final successful candidate's list and further recommend the name of present petitioner for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector class- II to the respondent no. 1 (E) Pending hearing till final disposal of the present petition This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue interim directions suspending the further operation of the action of the respondents of recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector class-II or further be pleased to direct the respondents to include the present petitioner in the final list of successful candidate for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector class-II or in the alternative direct the respondent no.2 to keep one post vacant for the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Inspector class II. (F) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant ad-
interim relief in terms of clause (E) of the prayer clause above mentioned.
(G) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require in the interest of justice."
6. Brief facts leading to the filing of the SCA No. Page 4 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 10993/2013 reads thus:
6.1. The respondent no.2 herein published an advertisement for recruitment of 147 vacancies for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-III including the reserved seats, which provided that the recruitment to the said post was to be made on the basis of the result of the competitive examination held for the purpose by the respondent no.2.
6.2. The said written examinations provided for appearing in two question papers, which were to be conducted on 30.09.2012. All the candidates were granted liberty to select either Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering as the subject for written examination for one question paper, while the second question paper was for the subject Gujarati, which was compulsory for all the candidates.
6.3. Pursuant to the said written examination conducted on 30.09.2012, one list of provisionally successful candidates in written examination was declared on 03.04.2013. Pursuant to the aforesaid, final list came to be declared on 09.05.2013. A copy notifying the successful candidates is duly produced at Annexure-Page 5 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined C. 6.4. According to the petitioner, the candidates who selected Mechanical Engineering as their subject for appearing in optional question paper were granted higher marks, after adopting the scaling formula, than candidates who selected Automobile Engineering as their subject for appearing in optional question paper.
6.5. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition.
6.6. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent no.2 in adopting the scaling formula. The petitioner herein sought for information pertaining to the marks obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Copies of the said applications are duly produced at Annexure-D (Collectively). The information provided, pursuant to the RTI applications are produced at Annexure-E (Collectively). 6.7. The petitioner has completed Diploma with first class in Automobile Engineering, and therefore, due to such arbitrary scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2, candidates of Page 6 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined Automobile Engineering have suffered irreparable loss, as they are granted even lesser marks after scaling then what they scored in competitive written examination. At the same time, the candidates of the Mechanical Engineering were granted considerably higher marks, after scaling then what they have scored in competitive written examination. The aforesaid has caused grave damage to the rights of the petitioner to get the equal opportunity in the matters of public employment. In view thereof, the petitioner herein is challenging the arbitrary action of the respondent no.2, by filing the present petition, for the reliefs as stated herein-above.
6.8. The petitioner of SCA No. 16252 of 2013 also applied, pursuant to the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-II in the month of August, 2012, which is duly produced at Annexure-A. 6.9. The petitioner passed the written examination and the provisional list of successful candidates, who appeared in written examination held on 02.12.2012 was declared, which is duly produced at Annexure-C. Pursuant to the competitive test, written Page 7 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined examination, physical test and viva interview, the final result of the successful candidates came to be declared on 16.08.2013, which is duly produced at Annexure-E. 6.10. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned final list declared by the respondent no.2, the same being arbitrary, as the scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2 while preparing the final list is illegal. The petitioner upon minutely observing the final list of successful candidates, applied for information under the RTI Act. To the surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner found that the candidates who had selected Mechanical Engineering as their subject in optional question paper were granted higher marks after adopting scaling formula, compared to those candidates who selected Automobile Engineering as their subject for appearing in optional question paper. The distinction in the marks granted after adopting scaling formula to the candidates of Mechanical Engineering and Automobile Engineering was such, that after adoption of scaling formula, marks scored by the candidates of the Automobile Engineering were drastically decreasing than what they scored in Page 8 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined the written examination, while candidates of Mechanical Engineering were advantaged by considerably very high marks after adoption of scaling formula, then what they have obtained in the written examination.
6.11. The petitioner herein belongs to Scheduled Caste and has produced the said certificate at Annexure-F. As per the advertisement, 4 seats were kept reserved for S.C. candidates. All the seats were procured by candidates of Mechanical Engineering, due to the irrational and arbitrary scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2. The petitioner's mother and the petitioner sought detailed information, by way of three applications pertaining to the scaling formula under the RTI Act. 6.12. The petitioner has completed degree with first class in Automobile Engineering, and therefore, due to such arbitrary scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2, the candidates of the Automobile Engineering suffered irreparable loss, as they are granted even very much lesser marks after scaling then what they have obtained in competitive written examination. At the same point of time, the candidates of Mechanical Engineering are Page 9 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined granted considerably higher marks, after scaling, then what they obtained in competitive written examination. 6.13. The impugned action of the respondent no.2 has caused great damage to the rights of the petitioner to get the equal opportunity in the matters of public employment. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition for the reliefs as stated herein-above.
7.1. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, it is not in dispute that the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 duly produced at Annexure-A, Pg.21 provides in Instruction No.5 that the respondent no.2 shall apply the method of scaling, however, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the method adopted by the respondent no.2, which is arbitrary. It is submitted that, it was only after the petitioner applied for information under the RTI Act, that the petitioner came to know about the formula adopted by the respondent no.2 - GPSC which was provided to the petitioner, the same is duly produced at page-79 in SCA No. 16252 of 2013.
Page 10 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 7.2. It is submitted that, the scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2 has resulted in granting more marks to the candidates of the Mechanical Engineering and decreased the marks of the candidates of Automobile Engineering than what they obtained in the written examination, while the candidates of the Mechanical Engineering were advantaged by considerably higher marks, upon adoption of scaling formula then what they have obtained in the written examination.
7.3. It is submitted that, the formula adopted by the respondent no.2 is advantageous to one class of candidates and adversely affects the other class of candidates. It is submitted that, in absence of the details of the method to be adopted by the respondent no.2 with regard to the scaling formula, having not been mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner could not have challenged the same, when the advertisement was published and in view thereof, the petitioner has no other option but to challenge the same, after the final result is published. 7.4. It is submitted that because of improper and arbitrary scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2, the entire Page 11 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined recruitment proceedings are vitiated, and therefore, the entire final list of the successful candidates, would be the outcome of the vitiated recruitment process, which would be the most undesirable situation, especially when the equal opportunity in matters of public employment is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is submitted that, the exercise of the powers conferred under Article-309 of the Constitution of India are exercised in the arbitrary manner and the same would be in contravention to the provision of Article-16 of the Constitution of India.
7.5. It is submitted that, there is no estoppel to challenge the method adopted by the respondent no.2, if the same is discriminatory and arbitrary qua the candidates of Automobile Engineering.
7.6. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Sanjay Singh and Anr. v/s. UPSC reported in 2007 3 SCC 720 (para-45 to 48), (ii) 2009 3 SCC 227 (pa-36), (iii) 2008 4 SCC 619 (pa-59) and (iv) 2022 (1) SCALE 157 Atulkumar Dwivedi.
Page 12 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 8.1. Mr. G.H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State has relied on the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the respondent no.1 duly produced at page-48 in SCA No. 10993/2013 and submitted that, the method and working of scaling system, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition, is within the purview of the respondent no.2 - GPSC.
8.2. It is submitted that, pursuant to the advertisement in question, the entire recruitment is concluded as 127 Assistant Motor Inspectors were given appointment orders on 27.05.2013 and came to be posted on 20.06.2013. Considering the long tenure already spent by such persons on official posts and the fact that such persons have not been impleaded as party respondents, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners, more particularly, under Para-8(C) for directions to quash and set aside the final list of successful candidates published by the respondent no.2 is such that the same cannot be granted and in view thereof, the present petitions are required to be dismissed in limine.
Page 13 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 8.3. It is submitted that, if any adverse order is passed, there is likelihood that it may affect the proceedings of State HSRP, automated driving test track, Road Safety Project and lastly it may increase State traffic offences, overloading and checking of vehicles under Motor Vehicle Act. It is submitted that the prayers sought for in the petitions, if granted, would cause irreversible, irreparable and immeasurable damage to State infrastructure and in view thereof the present petitions may kindly be dismissed.
9.1. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2- GPSC has relied on the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the GPSC in SCA No. 10993 of 2013, duly produced at page- 48 submitted that, the respondent no.2 - GPSC published advertisement No. 09/12-13 dated 17.07.2012 for 147 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (Class-III). As per the said advertisement, 76 posts are to be filled-in from Un-reserved (General) category candidates. Out of which, 22 posts are reserved for women candidates, 39 posts are to be filled-up in from SEBC category candidates. Out of 39 posts from SEBC Page 14 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined category candidates, 12 posts are reserved for women candidates, 10 are to be filled-in from SC category candidates. Out of 10 posts of SC category candidates, 3 posts are reserved for women candidates. 22 posts are to be filled-in from ST category candidates. Out of 22 posts from ST category candidates, 7 posts are reserved for women candidates. Out of total 147 posts, 15 posts are reserved for Ex-servicemen.
9.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid facts it is submitted that, the advertisement clearly mentioned that the result of the written test will be prepared by applying the 'scaling method' in the optional subjects, i.e. Automobile Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.
9.3. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 conducted the written test by applying the scaling method to Raw Marks scored by the candidates in the optional subjects. The respondent no.2 thereafter conducted the Physical Endurance Test - Physical Measurement Test for the period from 12.04.2013 to 22.04.2013. The petitioner herein had secured only 94 Raw Marks and 89 scaled marks in the subject of Automobile Engineering out of 200 Page 15 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined marks and in the subject of Gujarati, scored only 10 marks out of 50 marks in the written test. In all secured 99 marks, whereas, the qualifying standard for general category candidates has been fixed to 119 marks (pg.52), and therefore, declared unsuccessful in the written test. The result of which was declared on 09.05.2013.
9.4. It is submitted that, the scaling method is applied on the basis of the formula as mentioned at Annexure-R-I duly produced at Page-61. It is submitted that the aforesaid result was subject to the final decision in MCA No. 2613 of 2012 in LPA No. 962 of 2011 in SCA No. 2885 of 2012.
9.5. It is submitted that the names of 147 selected candidates were recommended for appointment to the Principal Secretary, Ports and Transport Department, Government of Gujarat vide letter dated 10.05.2013 by the respondent - GPSC and the respondent no.1 has given appointment to the selected candidates in May, 2013. The present petition has been filed, without joining the selected candidates.
9.6. To substantiate the aforesaid submission, Mr. Shukla, Page 16 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined learned advocate relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Kamlesh Haribhai Goradia v/s. Union of India and Anr. reported in 1987 (1) GLR 157 (pa-23) and the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and Another v/s. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720 (para-25, 26 and 45).
9.7. It is submitted that, neither the petitioner nor any other candidates raised any grievance about the declaration of the result of the written test, by applying the scaling formula in optional subjects. It is submitted that the petitioner only after knowing his result, that he was declared unsuccessful, has challenged the action of the respondent -GPSC, and after the select list was published, selected candidates were recommended for appointment and after about 2 months, after the selected candidates were appointed. The action of the petitioner can be said to be only afterthought and is not legally tenable. 9.8. To substantiate the aforesaid, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of Page 17 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined India v/s. S. Vinod Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100, Sadanand Halo and others v/s. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619 and Amlan Jyoti Borooah v/s. State of Assam and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227. 9.9. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate also relied on the Additional Affidavit duly produced at page-75, wherein, in the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 has placed on record the report dated 26.03.2013, wherein, the experts recommended the formula for scaling. The said report is relied upon which is duly placed at page-80 by way of Annexure-R-II.
9.10. Placing reliance on the details of the optional subjects, the candidates who appeared at the Main Examination - Written, Mean and Standard Deviation of the Optional Subject, which is reproduced at para-5 (pg.77), submitted that the Weighted Standard Deviation of all Optional Subjects as per the Scaling Formula is 17.24827 i.e. 17.25. The candidates who have scored Raw Marks '0' or less than '0' have been given as a Scale mark '0' only in SCA No. 10993 of 2013.
9.11. It is submitted that the formula suggested by the Page 18 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined Experts was also adopted and applied in the Combined Competitive Examination of Gujarat Civil Services Class-I and Class-II conducted by the respondent - Commission in the past. The said formula is upheld vide common judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 in SCA No. 15593 of 2008 and other cognate matters and the said judgment and order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2014 in LPA No. 388 of 2010.
9.12. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the respondent no.2 has applied the scaling formula which is an accepted method and in view thereof, the method adopted being just and proper, the present petition being devoid of merits, is required to be dismissed. 9.13. The contentions raised in the affidavit in reply filed in SCA No.10993 of 2013 are reiterated in SCA No. 16252 of 2013. In the said petition, the affidavit in reply is duly filed at page-87 and additional affidavit at page-217, wherein, it is reiterated that the same method of scaling formula is applied, wherein in the said petition, in para-3 it is stated that the Page 19 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined respondent no.2 appointed the Committee of two experts for suggesting a suitable scaling formula for the raw marks obtained by candidates at the Main Examination - Written for recruitment of 66 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-II, which comprised of one compulsory and one optional subject, i.e. Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. The result of the main examination - written had been declared after applying the scaling method in optional subjects, as specifically provided in the public advertisement. The report dated 08.04.2013 of the expert is duly produced at Annexure-R-II (pg.222). 9.14. Placing reliance on para-5 of the reply (219), it is submitted that the Weighted Standard Deviation of all Optional subjects as per the Scaling Formula is 15.9292 i.e. 15.93. The candidates who scored Raw Mark '0" or less than '0' have been given as a Scale Mark '0' only.
9.15. The other contentions as raised in SCA No. 10993 of 2013 are reiterated and it is submitted that the present petition be dismissed.
10. In SCA No. 10993 of 2013 and SCA No. 16252 of Page 20 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 2013, the petitioners have filed Additional Affidavit, wherein, by way of Additional Affidavit, the petitioners of both the petitions have stated that the scaling method applied in the present case is known as standard linear score method of scaling. In the said method, choice of mean and standard deviation is purely arbitrary. The ideal situation as per the books on the subject, by V Natrajan and K Gunasekaran 'The Scaling Technique' is assumed mean = half of the maximum marks of the subject, assured SD will be 1/5th of the assumed mean. In the present case, the values taken by the respondent no.2 of the assumed mean and Sd and WSD is provided on much lesser side in case of Automobile Engineers and same is provided in higher side in case of Mechanical Engineers and as a result of such arbitrary assumptions of the variables, i.e. assumed mean, assumed SD and WSD, the results are providing discriminatory treatment to the candidates of both the branches as the raw marks of the Automobile Engineers are decreasing after scaling and raw marks of Mechanical Engineers are increasing after scaling. 10.1. The petitioners herein have placed on record a chart Page 21 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined prepared by the petitioners to suggest as to how irrational results have been procured by the respondent no.2 in the present case. 10.2. One chart is placed on record to suggest that if correct values of variables would have been taken, how results could have been different.
10.3. The aforesaid are duly placed on record at Annexure- R-1 at page-71 to 74 in SCA No. 10993 of 2013 and Page.213 as Annexure-R-3 in SCA No. 16252 of 2013.
10.4. The petitioner in SCA No. 16252 of 2013 has also placed on record by way of Additional Affidavit at Page-223, the recruitment Rules and Competitive Examination Rules of the challenged recruitment process as Annexure-T-1, the GPSC Rules as Annexure-T-2, table of marks of the petitioner with the marks of the selected candidates at T-3, further affidavit on behalf of the GPSC in LPA No. 657 of 2003 alongwith the written submission as Annexure-T-4 and reply received under RTI Act on 15.03.2018 showing a number of 129 vacant posts for the aforesaid post as Annexure-T-5.
10.5. Relying on Para-10 of the said Affidavit, it is Page 22 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined submitted that the report of expert committee constituted by the respondent no.2 duly produced at page-222, is not suitable formula and the experts emphasized that the said scaling formula was used in 2003 and 2008.
10.6. Placing reliance on the formula as referred to in the case of Sanjay Singh v/s. UPSC reported in 2007 (3) SCC 720 a table is prepared at page-230, based on which it is submitted that the scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2 is arbitrary.
ANALYSIS:
11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following emerges:
11.1. The facts as referred above are undisputed and in view thereof, the same are not repeated.
11.2. The petitioners' main grievance is with respect to the scaling formula adopted by the respondent no.2 - GPSC. The said formula adopted by the respondent no.2 - GPSC is duly produced at page-80 in SCA No. 10993 of 2013. It is apposite to reproduce the expert's opinion, which reads thus:Page 23 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined "We were asked by Gujarat Public Service Commission to suggest a suitable scaling formula for the raw marks obtained by candidates at the GPSC Examination for recruitment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-III, Advt. No. 09/2012-
13. The scaling was necessary as candidates had the choice of offering Automobile Engineering paper or Mechanical Engineering paper and the difficulty level of the two papers was appearently not the same.
We had carried out similar exercises in 2003 and 2008 about another examination conducted by GPSC. We had then used the following formula for scaled marks of a candidate:
Here M and S are arbitrary but fixed Mean and Standard Deviation, are the actual or raw marks of the candidate in the ith optional paper, is the mean of the actual scores of all candidates in the ith optional paper and Si is the standard deviation of the raw scores in the ith optional paper. We used the same formula on an earlier occasion. We have 2 values of i here because there are only two optional papers. We note that in our scaling formula, the value of M does not affect the ranks of candidates. This is because the difference between the scaled marks of any two candidates does not depend on M. (Actually M cancels out) We have taken M=50 but S has an effect on the ranks. Therefore we can choose M convenienty and change it if, for example the scaled marks of some candidates turn out to be negative. Our first choice for M is the mean of the raw scores of both the papers combined. But we must be careful in the choice of S. The best choice is either the mean or the weighted mean of the standard deviations of both the papers and we have chosen the weighted mean (weighted by the number of students in each) of the standard deviations in the two papers as our S. We chose this option because with ordinary mean, the top students in one paper seemed to get an unfair advantage in the ranking.
We believe that, our scaling formula is unbiased and can be applied as a formula that does justice to all."Page 24 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 11.3. At this stage, it is apposite to refer Para-3 to 5 of Additional Affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 in SCA No. 10993 of 2013, which reads thus:
"3. I say that the Respondent Commission had appointed the Committee of two experts for suggesting a suitable scaling formula for the raw marks obtained by candidates at the Main Examination - Written for recruitment of 147 posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (Class-III). I say that the Main Examination - Written was comprising of one compulsory and one optional subject i.e. Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. The result of the Main Examination - Written had been declared after applying the Scaling Method in optional subjects as specifically provided in the public advertisement. I say that the Scaling Method is applied on the basis of the Formula annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply.
4. I say that the Experts appointed by the Respondent Commission were:
(i) Mr. A.V. Gajjar M.Sc., Ph.D. with Statistics.
Retired Professor and Head of Department, Gujarat University.
(ii) Mr. A.M. Vaidya M.Sc., Ph.D. with Mathematics.
Retired Professor, Gujarat University.
I say that the Experts recommended the formula for scaling vide their Report dated 26.03.2013. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE - 'R-II' is the copy of the report dated 26.03.2013 submitted by the Experts to the Respondent Commission.
5. I say that the details about the Optional Subjects, candidates present at the Main Examination - Written, Mean and Standard Deviation of the Optional Subjects is as under:
Subject Present Mean of Standard
candidate the Deviation
Subject of the
Subject
Page 25 of 47
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Automobile 1460 41.87 23.14
Engineering
Mechanical 4159 17.01 15.18
Engineering
The Weighted Standard Deviation of all Optional Subjects as per the Scaling Formula is 17.24827 i.e. 17.25. The candidates who have scored Raw marks 'O' (zero) or less than '0' (zero) have been given as a Scale mark 'O' (zero) only.
6. I say that the Formula suggested by the Experts was also adopted and applied in the Combined Competitive Examination of Gujarat Civil Services Class-I & Class-II conducted by the Respondent Commission in the past. This Hon'ble Court has upheld the said Formula vide Common Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 15593 of 2008 and other cognate matters and the said Judgment and Order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2014 in Letters Patent Appeal No.388 of 2010."
11.4. The scaling method adopted by the respondent no.2 in the facts of the present petition was subject matter of challenge in SCA No. 15593 of 2008 advocated by the respondent no.2 - GPSC for previous recruitment, wherein, by judgment and order dated 16.12.2009, the challenge in the said petition was made with respect to the method adopted by the GPSC i.e. scaling formula while declaring and preparing the result of the examination, a direction was sought to declare the result on the basis of actual marks (raw marks obtained by the candidates) and Page 26 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined further direct the respondent no.2 - GPSC to give opportunity of rechecking. In the said petition, the scaling method adopted by the GPSC was accepted, wherein, it was held that the scaling formula adopted by the GPSC cannot be held to be unreasonable or unscientific. The aforesaid is discussed and held in Para-47 (internal page-53), placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sanjay Singh (supra), wherein, in para-48 relevant paragraphs of Sanjay Singh (supra) are reproduced. The same formula is applied in the facts of the present case, as referred above. At this stage it is apposite to refer para-47 to 50 of the said judgment which reads thus:
"47.It appears that while taking a policy decision to apply scaling method and that too after considering report of the experts, the GPSC considered the fact that there were three compulsory subjects and 28 optional subjects offered to a candidate and out of 28 optional subjects, two subjects were to be opted/selected by a candidate. The statement with respect to particulars of compulsory subjects and optional subjects and number of candidates selecting respective optional subjects and the particulars of number of examiners is already reproduced hereinabvoe. It appears that on the basis of the opinion of the experts and while arriving at the weightage deviation of all the optional subjects the GPSC applied the following formula:-
Scaled Marks = (M=Constant) + Raw Marks of Candidate - Mean of Concerned Optional Subject X Weightage Standard Deviation of all Optional Subject ____________________________________________ Standard Deviation Concerned Optional Subject.Page 27 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined
(i) It appears that the scaled marks with repsect to optional subjects which came to be arrived at 21.86 was arrived at on the basis of the aforesaid formula, where, M has remained constant and in the present case it is 100 + (plus) raw marks of candidates i.e. actual marks obtained by the candidates in each optional subject - (minus) mean of concerned optional subject).
(ii)Mean of concerned optional subject means total number of students appeared in particular subject and total marks obtained by each candidates in particular subject i.e. total marks obtained by all the candidates in particular subject / (divided) by number of students appeared in particular subject which is known as average marks.
(iii)Standard Deviation means squareroot of sum of (f x X x X) and / (divided) by total number of candidates in particular subject. F means frequency i.e. number of candidates obtaining same marks in particular optional subject. As per example in one optional subject like Animal Husbandry if four candidates have obtained 86 marks, in that case, for particular student obtaining 86 marks (f) i.e. frequency would be 4 x (multiply) raw marks (marks obtained by particular candidates - (minus) mean marks arrived at as stated hereinabove i.e. average marks). Thereafter for arriving at standard deviation, total marks obtained by all the candidates as per F x X x X / (divide) by number of candidates in particular optional subject and squareroot of sum figure would be known as and considered as standard deviation of particular optional subject.
(iv)Weightage Standard Deviation is worked out on the basis of multiplying number of candidates with standard deviation of particular optional subject. Thereafter, number of marks / or the sum derived at after considering above i.e. standard deviation x (multiply) number of candidates of each subject would be totalled of all the subjects and figure arrived at would be / (divided) by number of students appeared in all the optional subject and that would be weighted standard deviation.
(v)Scaled Marks would be M equivalent to 100 as stated hereinabove + (plus) {(actual marks obtained by respective candidates in optional subject - (minus) mean of concerned optional subject as stated above) x (multiply) weighted standard Page 28 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined deviation of all optional subject (which would be common so far as each candidate is concerned) / (divided) by standard deviation of concerned optional subject}. There will be two scaled marks calculated with respect to each candidate.
Therefore, for the purpose of preparing merit list marks obtained by each candidate in three compulsory subject + (plus) scaled marks obtained by particular candidate in each optional subject is to be calculated and that is how merit list is prepared.
(vi)Statement of subject-wise, figure-wise with respect to each optional subject and the scaled marks with respect to each optional subject, provided by GPSC, is as under:-
xxx Thus, considering the above, it cannot be said that the scaling formula while preparing merit list is unreasonable and unscientific. It appears to the Court that while preparing the merit list by applying the aforesaid formula and scaling method there is a rational behind the same and those candidates who have opted different optional subjects and whose question papers are examined by the different examiners would be at par. To satisfy whether by applying the aforesaid formula and scaling method and while preparing the merit list whether the candidates are likely to suffer or not and/or whether there will be any injustice to them or not, this Court called upon the GPSC to furnish the comparative statements i.e. merit list on the basis of raw marks and merit on the basis of applying scaled formula and considering the same, this Court is satisfied that no injustice has been caused to them, on the contrary, it appears that all of them i.e. all of them who appeared in different optional subjects are to be at par.
48. In the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), in para 25 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"25. A. Edwin Harper Jr. and V. Vidya Sagar Misra in their publication Research on Examinations in India have tried to explain and define scaling. We may usefully borrow the same. A degree "Farhenheit" is different from a degree "Centigrade". Though both express temperature in degrees, the "degree" is different for the two scales. What is 40 degrees in Centigrade scale is 104 degrees in Fahrenheit scale. Similarly, when marks are assigned to answer scripts in different papers, Page 29 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined say by Examiner "A" in Geometry and Examiner "B" in History, the meaning or value of the "marks" is different. Scaling is the process which beings the marks awarded by Examiner "A" in regard to Geometry scale and marks awarded by Examiner "B" in regard to history scale, to a common scale. Scaling is the exercise of putting the marks which are the results of different scales adopted in different subjects by different examiners onto a common scale so as to permit comparison of inter se merit. By this exercise, the raw marks awarded by the examiner in different subjects are converted to a "score" on a common scale by applying a statistical formula. The "raw marks" when converted to a common scale are known as the "scaled marks". Scaling process, whereby raw marks in different subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a recognised method of ensuring uniformity inter se among the candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects, as, for example, the Civil Services Examination."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also further observed in the said decision that scaling formula, therefore, does not address or rectify effect of strictness or liberality of the examiner. Scaling formula is more suited and appropriate to find a common base and interse merit where candidate takes examination in different subjects. As such, by observing the above, on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the scaling formula which was applied in that case and on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that unequals were being treated as equal. In the present case, such is not the situation. Under the circumstances and as stated above, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the scaling method applied while preparing the merit list is not permissible at all, cannot be accepted. Even considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case as well as this Court, in an appropriate case, applying scaling formula is permissible. In the present case, applying scaling formula while preparing merit list is just and it cannot be said that unequals are treated equals.
49.Now, so far as another prayer / grievance made by the petitioners with respect to declaration of the result of the candidates before actual interviews of successful candidates are held is concerned, in view of the fact that subsequently during the pendency of the present petition on the basis of the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Patel Page 30 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined Vimalkumar Kantilal and others (supra), contempt petition was filed before this Court and a statement was made that the result of the unsuccessful candidates would be declared and it is reported that the result of the unsuccessful candidates has been declared, now this Court is not further observing anything on the aforesaid aspect and the said question is kept open.
50. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the petitions fail and deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 11.4.1. The aforesaid decision is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sanjay singh (supra). It is apposite to reproduce para-2 (pg. 729), Para-7 (pg.731), Relevant Question (iii) and (iv), Para-21 to 23, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the hawk-dove effect, Para-24 to 28-scaling method formula, Para-31, 48 and 49, which reads thus:
"2. On the request of the Allahabad High Court, to conduct the examination for filling 347 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Commission issued an advertisement in Employment News dated 28-11- 2003. As many as 51,524 candidates appeared for the "U.P. Judicial Service, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Examination, 2003"
conducted by the Commission on 21-3-2004. The preliminary examination was of "objective" type consisting of two papers -- General Knowledge and Law. The result was declared on 30-6-2004 and 6046 candidates were declared qualified to appear for "U.P. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination (Main), 2003" which was of "descriptive" (conventional) type. The main examination consisted of five papers (each carrying 200 marks) -- General Knowledge, Language, Law I, II and III -- and was held between 5-10-2004 and 7-10-2004. The number of candidates who took the said examination was 5748.
Page 31 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined
7. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the writ petitions are not maintainable?
(ii) Whether "scaling" of marks is contrary to or prohibited by the relevant Rules?
(iii) Whether the "scaling system" adopted by the Commission is arbitrary and irrational, and whether the decision in S.C. Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] approving the "scaling system" requires reconsideration?
(iv) If the statistical scaling system is found to be illegal or irrational or unsound, whether the selections already made, which are the subject-matter of these petitions, should be interfered with?
21. But the question is whether the raw marks which are converted into scaled scores on an artificial scale with assumed variables (assumed mean marks and assumed standard deviation) can be considered as "marks finally awarded" or "marks obtained". Scaled scores are not marks awarded to a candidate in a written examination, but a figure arrived at for the purpose of being placed on a common scale. It can vary with reference to two arbitrarily fixed variables, namely, "assumed mean" and "assumed standard mean". We have dealt with this aspect in greater detail while dealing with Question (iii). For the reasons given while considering Question (iii), we hold that "scaled scores" or "scaled marks" cannot be considered to be "marks awarded to a candidate in the written examination". Therefore, scaling violates Rule 20(3) and Note
(i) of Appendix II of the Judicial Service Rules.
22. Rule 20 of the Judicial Service Rules requires the Commission to call for interview such number of candidates, who in its opinion have secured the minimum marks fixed by it. Because of application of scaling system by the Commission, it has not been possible for the Commission to fix such minimum marks either for individual subjects or for the aggregate. In the absence of minimum marks, several candidates who secured less than 30% in a subject have been selected. We note below by way of illustration, the particulars of some candidates who have been selected in spite of securing less than 20% in a subject:
Sl. No. Roll No. Subject Actual Scaled Rank in marks (in marks selection %)
1. 012610 Language 8% 79 225
2. 032373 Language 8% 79 290
3. 002454 Language 11% 79 196 Page 32 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined 4. 008097 Language 13% 89 85
5. 017808 Law I 13% 76 317
6. 010139 Language 14% 85 333
7. 012721 Law I 15% 100 172
8. 002831 Language 16% 89 263
9. 004998 Language 17% 91 161 Thus scaling system adopted by the Commission, contravenes Rule 20(1) also.
Re: Question (iii)
23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer-scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one examiners evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer-scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners receive equal batches of answer-scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is "hawk-dove" effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well-written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is "reduced valuation" by a strict examiner and "enhanced valuation" by a liberal examiner. This is known as "examiner variability" or "hawk-dove effect". Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the examiners so that the effect of "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability" is minimised. The Page 33 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as follows:
(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/judges. Where the case is of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation.
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer-scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or erraticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer-
scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level answer-scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer-scripts valued by each examiner. The top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks, etc. may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggests upward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness Page 34 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined in marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer-scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the examiners. In such a situation, one more level of examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of "moderation" would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity.
24. In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were required to take the examination in respect of all the five subjects and the candidates did not have any option in regard to the subjects. In such a situation, moderation appears to be an ideal solution. But there are examinations which have a competitive situation where candidates have the option of selecting one or few among a variety of heterogenous subjects and the number of students taking different options also vary and it becomes necessary to prepare a common merit list in respect of such candidates. Let us assume that some candidates take Mathematics as an optional subject and some take English as the optional subject. It is well recognised that marks of 70 out of 100 in Mathematics do not mean the same thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out of 100 may indicate an outstanding student whereas in Mathematics, 70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average student. Some optional subjects may be very easy, when compared to others, resulting in wide disparity in the marks secured by equally capable students. In such a situation, candidates who have opted for the easier subjects may steal an advantage over those who opted for difficult subjects. There is another possibility. The paper-setters in regard to some optional subjects may set questions which are comparatively easier to answer when compared to some paper- setters in other subjects who set tougher questions which are difficult to Page 35 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined answer. This may happen when for example, in Civil Service Examination, where Physics and Chemistry are optional papers, Examiner 'A' sets a paper in Physics appropriate to degree level and Examiner 'B' sets a paper in Chemistry appropriate for matriculate level. In view of these peculiarities, there is a need to bring the assessment or valuation to a common scale so that the inter se merit of candidates who have opted for different subjects, can be ascertained. The moderation procedure referred to in the earlier para will solve only the problem of examiner variability, where the examiners are many, but valuation of answer-scripts is in respect of a single subject. Moderation is no answer where the problem is to find inter se merit across several subjects, that is, where candidates take examination in different subjects. To solve the problem of inter se merit across different subjects, statistical experts have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from different tests or test forms on to a common scale. There are different methods of statistical scoring. Standard score method, linear standard score method, normalised equipercentile method are some of the recognised methods for scaling.
25. A. Edwin Harper Jr. and V. Vidya Sagar Misra in their publication Research on Examinations in India have tried to explain and define scaling. We may usefully borrow the same. A degree "Fahrenheit" is different from a degree "Centigrade". Though both express temperature in degrees, the "degree" is different for the two scales. What is 40 degrees in Centigrade scale is 104 degrees in Fahrenheit scale. Similarly, when marks are assigned to answer-scripts in different papers, say by Examiner 'A' in Geometry and Examiner 'B' in History, the meaning or value of the "marks" is different. Scaling is the process which brings the marks awarded by Examiner 'A' in regard to Geometry scale and the marks awarded by Examiner 'B' in regard to History scale, to a common scale. Scaling is the exercise of putting the marks which are the results of different scales adopted in different subjects by different examiners onto a common scale so as to permit comparison of inter se merit. By this exercise, the raw marks awarded by the examiner in different subjects are converted to a "score" on a common scale by applying a statistical formula. The "raw marks" when converted to a common scale are known as the "scaled marks". Scaling process, whereby raw marks in different subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a recognised method of ensuring uniformity inter se among the candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects, as, for example, the Civil Services Examination.
26. The Union Public Service Commission ("UPSC", for short) conducts the largest number of examinations providing choice of subjects. When assessing inter se merit, it takes recourse to scaling only in Civil Page 36 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined Service Preliminary Examination where candidates have the choice to opt for any one paper out of 23 optional papers and where the question papers are of objective type and the answer-scripts are evaluated by computerised scanners. In regard to compulsory papers which are of descriptive (conventional) type, valuation is done manually and scaling is not resorted to. Like UPSC, most examining authorities appear to take the view that moderation is the appropriate method to bring about uniformity in valuation where several examiners manually evaluate answer-scripts of descriptive/conventional type question papers in regard to same subject; and that scaling should be resorted to only where a common merit list has to be prepared in regard to candidates who have taken examination in different subjects, in pursuance of an option given to them.
27. But some examining authorities, like the Commission are of the view that scaling can be used, not only where there is a need to find a common base across different subjects (that is bringing the performance in different subjects to a common scale), but also as an alternative to moderation, to reduce examiner variability (that is where different examiners evaluate answer-scripts relating to the same subject).
28. Let us now examine the reasons as to why the Commission adopted "scaling" instead of moderation. The Committee states that the anomalies caused on account of "examiner variability" was engaging its attention. It found that a candidate's score may depend upon the "chance" factor of whether his answer-scripts are assessed by a lenient or a strict examiner; and that in an extreme case, while a candidate of a given merit may get a first class/division, another student of equal merit may be declared to have failed. Therefore, the Commission constituted a committee to carry out an in-depth study into the matter and suggest appropriate means to ensure that the evaluation was on more equitable basis. The Committee by its report dated 2-9-1996 suggested statistical scaling system as the remedy and recommended the linear standard score method which operates on the following formula:
Z = Assumed mean + [(X−M)/SD × Assumed SD] Z = is the scaled score.
X = is the raw mark.
M = is the mean of raw marks of the group/subject. SD = is the standard deviation of raw marks of the group/subject. The Committee suggested the following "assumptions" or "parameters" for applying the formula:
(i) Assumed mean will be taken as half of the maximum marks of the group/subject.
(ii) Assumed SD will be taken as one-fifth of the assumed mean.Page 37 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined
(iii) If scaled score is less than zero after scaling, then candidates will be allotted zero marks in the said group/subject.
(iv) If scaled score after scaling is more than maximum marks, then candidate will be allotted maximum marks in the said group/subject.
31. The entire basis for applying scaling in regard to marks awarded by different examiners in the same subject is the assumption that all answer-scripts have been thoroughly mixed, and that equal number of answer-scripts drawn at random and sent to each examiner for valuation will contain answer-scripts of candidates with equal distribution of abilities. When the distribution of abilities in each batch is approximately equal, the mean marks and standard deviation of the scaled marks of each batch will be identical. To put it differently, if each examiner is sent 300 answer-scripts and each batch of 300 candidates has almost equal number of good, average and poor standard students, they can all be brought to a common scale for comparing their merit inter se. But we find that there is no such broad equal distribution in the examination with which we are concerned. We find from the tables furnished that the range of marks awarded and the range of deviation has varied enormously from examiner to examiner in the same subject. We extract below these ranges, which demonstrate the wide diversity, in turn indicating that scaling method was inappropriate for bringing uniformity in valuation:
Subject No. of No. of Mean Standard Minimu Maximum exam-iners scripts marks of deviation m marks marks exam-ined the of marks (awarded (awarded (range) exam-iner allotted by the by the (range) (range) examiner examiner) )
1. General 18 50 to 800 47.4 to 12.24 to 10 to 43 84 to 126 Knowledge 83.91 20.49
2. Language 14 231 to 37.51 to 14.16 to 0 to 30 105 to 800 82.43 31.75 145
3. Law I 11 300 to 30.83 to 12.45 to 0 to 10 83 to 113 900 56.90 17.85
4. Law II 10 200 to 70.57 to 11.48 to 0 to 40 113 to 1402 94.40 20.05 132
5. Law III 14 150 to 63.14 to 13.16 to 0 to 31 99 to 134 1000 86.74 19.54
48.S.C. Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] , therefore, upheld scaling on two conclusions, namely, (i) that the scaling formula was adopted by the Commission after an expert study and in such matters, the Court will not interfere unless it is proved to be arbitrary and unreasonable; and (ii) the Page 38 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined scaling system adopted by the Commission eliminated the inconsistency arising on account of examiner variability (differences due to evaluation by strict examiners and liberal examiners). As scaling was a recognised method to bring raw marks in different subjects to a common scale and as the Commission submitted that they introduced scaling after a scientific study by experts, this Court apparently did not want to interfere. This Court was also being conscious that any new method, when introduced, required corrections and adjustments from time to time and should not be rejected at the threshold as unworkable. But we have found after an examination of the manner in which scaling system has been introduced and the effect thereof on the present examination, that the system is not suitable. We have also concluded that there was no proper or adequate study before introduction of scaling and the scaling system which is primarily intended for preparing a common merit list in regard to candidates who take examinations in different optional subjects, has been inappropriately and mechanically applied to a situation where the need is to eliminate examiner variability on account of strict/liberal valuation. We have found that the scaling system adopted by the Commission leads to irrational results, and does not offer a solution for examiner variability arising from strict/liberal examiners. Therefore, it can be said that neither of the two assumptions made in S.C. Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] can validly continue to apply to the type of examination with which we are concerned. We are therefore of the view that the approval of the scaling system in S.C. Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] is no longer valid.
49. Learned counsel for the Commission contended that scaling has been accepted as a standard method of evaluation in the following decisions and therefore it should be approved:
(i) Kamlesh Haribhai Goradia v. Union of India [(1987) 1 Guj LR 157] upheld by this Court by order dated 11-3-1987 in SLP (C) No. 14000 of 1986.
(ii) Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan [(1994) 1 Raj LR 533] upheld by this Court by order dated 22-1-1996 in SLPs (C) Nos. 15682-84 of 1994.
(iii) K. Channegowda v. Karnataka Public Service Commission [(2005) 12 SCC 688 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 707] .
All the three cases related to moderation and not scaling. There are, however, passing references to scaling as one of the methods to achieve common standard of assessment. The fact that scaling is a standard method of assessment, when a common base has to be found for comparative assessment of candidates taking examinations in different optional subjects, is not in dispute. In fact the Commission may continue to adopt the said system of scaling, where a comparative assessment is to Page 39 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined be made of candidates having option to take different subjects. The question is whether scaling, in particular, linear standard scaling system as adopted by the Commission, is a suitable process to eliminate "examiner variability" when different examiners assess the answer-scripts relating to the same subject. None of the three decisions is of any assistance to approve the use of method of "scaling" used by the Commission."
11.5. In the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court intervened, wherein, the scaling formula was applied for compulsory subjects. In the facts of the present case, the scaling formula is applied with respect to optional subjects only, i.e. Automobile Engineering and Mechanical Engineering only. 11.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court also in the aforesaid judgment held that the scaling is a standard method of assessment, when a common base has to be found for comparative assessment of candidates taking examinations in different optional subjects. In the facts of the said case, the respondent- UPSC was directed to continue to adopt the system of scaling, where a comparative assessment is made of the candidates taking examination in different optional subjects. 11.7. The question was whether scaling, in particular, linear standard scaling system as adopted by the UPSC, was a suitable Page 40 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined process to eliminate examiner variability when different examiners assess the answer-scripts relating to the same subject. Answering the said question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para-50 that there is no doubt about the said principle, but manifest arbitrariness and irrationality is an exception to the said principle. The said principle is duly accepted and not interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, the Commission had accepted that they would adopt the better system. 11.8. The respondent no.2 in the affidavit duly produced at page-48 in SCA No. 10993 of 2013 in Para-3.3 has explained the result of the petitioner that the petitioner secured 94 Raw Marks and 89 Scaled Marks in the Automobile Engineering out of 200 marks and in the subject of Gujarati he had secured only 10 marks out of 50 marks in written test, in all the petitioner secured 99 marks, whereas, the qualifying standard for general category candidates has been fixed 119 marks, and therefore, the petitioner is declared unsuccessful in the written test, the result of which was declared on 09.05.2013.
11.9. Referring to the Affidavit in reply of the respondent Page 41 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined no.2 in SCA No. 16252 of 2013 upon Para-3.3 at page-91, it emerges that the respondent no.2 conducted the written test by applying the scaling method to Raw Marks scored by the candidates in the Optional Subjects. The respondent - Commission thereafter conducted the Physical Endurance Test - Physical Measurement Test for the period from 06.05.2013 to 08.05.2013 and 24.06.2013.
11.10. The petitioner secured 117 Raw Marks and 75 Scaled Marks in the subject of Automobile Engineering out of 200 marks and in Gujarati and English, petitioner secured 47 marks out of 100 marks in written test and 5 marks in the personal interview, therefore, the petitioner secured 127 total marks, whereas, qualifying standard for SC category candidate was fixed at 138 marks and therefore, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the written test, the result of which was declared on 16.08.2013. The aforesaid results are based on the scaling formula, which is duly produced on record as referred above. 11.11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not joined the successful candidates, who would otherwise be Page 42 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined adversely affected, if the present petitions were to be allowed. 11.12. The petitioners in both the petitions have vehemently submitted that the scaling formula from the book of Natrajan and K Gunasekaran ought to have been adopted by the respondent no.2. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), if the method adopted by the respondent no.2 is linear scaling method, the said method is not interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 11.13. By placing on record the charts which provides for the preferable method adopted by the GPSC, it is submitted that the method adopted by the GPSC is recommended by the committee of the experts constituted by the GPSC. In the opinion of this Court, the said committee is well-known in the subjects / field, having themselves signed on the report, which is duly placed on record by the respondent no.2 as referred above. In absence of any arbitrariness coming on record on the part of the respondent no.2 - GPSC, the present Petitions fail. 11.14. The petitioners have raised a contention by raising grievance with regard to the determination of figure of Page 43 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined weighted standard deviation, which at the first brush looks impressive, but on closer scrutiny and on applying the scaling method as elaborated from the angle of expert statisticians, requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11.15. There is no dispute with regard to the standard deviation of individual subject is raised by any of the petitioners either in SCA 10993/2013 and / or SCA 16252/2013. In both the petitions, the only calculation of weighted standard deviation is questioned, by raising a contention that a common integer of 17.25 in SCA 10993/2013 and 16.01 in SCA 16252/2013 could not have been applied for both the subjects, but the figure would change for both the subjects respectively. The aforesaid contention is examined by this Court in the context of the method applied by respondent no.2-GPSC, wherein, the figures of 17.25 and 16.01 for weighted standard deviation is arrived at, after applying the entire formula which is as under:
"In connection with Advertisement No. 12/ 12-13 Weighted Standard Deviation = (n1 X sd1)+ (n2 X sd2) / (n1 + n2) (Number of applicants of concerned 1st subject X Standard Deviation of concerned 1st subject) + (Number of applicants of concerned 2nd Page 44 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined subject X Standard Deviation of concerned 2 nd subject) / (Total number of applicants in both the subjects) = (2081 X 13.93) + (351 X 28.32) / (2081 + 351) = 16.0068462 (Rounded off to 16.01) In connection with Advertisement No. 9/12-13 Weighted Standard Deviation = (n1 X sd1)+ (n2 X sd2) / (n1 + n2) (Number of applicants of concerned 1st subject X Standard Deviation of concerned 1st subject) + (Number of applicants of concerned 2nd subject X Standard Deviation of concerned 2 nd subject) / (Total number of applicants in both the subjects) = (1460 X 23.14) + (4159 X 15.18) / (1460 + 4159) = 17.24827 (Rounded off to 17.25)"
11.16. Once the weighted standard deviation is derived at 16.01 and 17.25 respectively and the same is fixed for the calculations, then the method adopted by the respondent no.2 - GPSC is just and proper and in view of this Court, does not require any interference.
11.17. In light of the aforesaid calculation and considering the affidavit filed by the expert that while giving preference over mean, results is unfair advantage advantage in ranking to the students in one paper over the other students in ranking.
11.18. The aforesaid is within the domain of experts, Page 45 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined which requires no interference once the method adopted by the respondent no. 2 - GPSC appears to be just and proper. This Court is otherwise not an expert in the field however has delved into the above calculation in the interest of justice. 11.19. Reference made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in SCA No. 16252 of 2013, wherein, the subject matter was interim order passed in SCA No. 16703 of 2017, wherein, the result was subject to the final outcome of the petition, is dismissed.
11.20. So far as SCA No. 16252 of 2013 is concerned, in absence of any such interim order, the contentions raised by Mr. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - GPSC appeals to this Court that the present petition suffers from non-joiner of necessary and proper parties, wherein, 66 successful candidates were recommended for appointment by the respondent no.1 by letter dated 17.08.2013 by the respondent - Commissioner and the respondent no.1 has given appointment to the selected candidates on 02.09.2013. The petition is filed belatedly on 24.10.2013.
Page 46 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10993/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined
12. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner that though in the advertisement, instruction no.5 provided that the respondent no.2 would apply the scaling formula and the method applied were not known, the petitioners are prejudiced. This Court has considered the entire formula applied by the respondent no.2 herein, which in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference.
13. For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the Petitions fail and are DISMISSED. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule discharged.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pradhyuman Page 47 of 47 Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Thu Jun 19 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 20 01:34:08 IST 2025