Gujarat High Court
Virendrasinh Chandubha Vaghela vs The State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12309 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
VIRENDRASINH CHANDUBHA VAGHELA & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAG AAYADI FOR MR. MAULIK M SONI (7249) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR G H VIRK G.P. WITH DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK WITH RUCHI RAMPURIA WITH MAITRI
MODI (11607) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Chirag Aayadi for Mr. Maulik Soni for the petitioner and Learned G.P. Mr.G.H.Virk appearing with Learned A.G.P. Ms.Dharitri Pancholi with learned advocate Mr.S.H.Virk, learned advocate Mrs.Ruchi Rampuria with Mrs.Maitri Modi for the respondent-State and respondent No.2 respectively.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up finally. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent-State.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following prayers;
A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit this petition;
B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue appropriate write, order and direction to the respondent No.2 and direct to decide the representation the petitioners dated 01/02.05.2025 mark as Annexure G, as well as issue direction upon the respondent authority to calculate the marks as per the notification dated 26.08.2021 mark as Annexure-A as well as advertisement No. 200/2021-22 mark as Annexure-B for the post of armed sub inspector Class-3 and not as per pro rata calculation method and deduct 0.25 marks for incorrect answer.
C. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased pass interim order and be pleased to direct the respondent to carry out the Physical Standard Test within 2 days as early as possible.
D. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased pass interim order and be pleased to direct the respondent authority to permit the petitioners to appear in mains examination schedule on 04.09.2025.
Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined E. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.
4. By way of this petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that, as per the scheme of the multiple-choice question examination for the post of Reserve Police Sub-Inspector/Armed Police Sub-Inspector, Class-III (including Gram Rakshak Dal, Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad, Quick Response Team and Drill Instructor), for every correct answer the candidate would be awarded one mark, for every incorrect attempt 0.25 marks would be deducted, and if the candidate does not attempt a question, there shall be no deduction from the marks obtained. In the instant case, according to learned advocate Mr. Chirag Aayadi, although the examination consisted of 200 questions, 6 questions were ultimately cancelled, and therefore the petitioners are entitled to receive 6 marks for those cancelled questions irrespective of whether they were attempted or not; consequently, the petitioners who could not qualify for the next round of selection due to their marks being less than the cut-off marks, would have qualified had they been awarded 6 additional marks for the 6 deleted questions, and therefore this petition has been preferred challenging the action of the respondents in distributing the marks of the 6 cancelled questions among the remaining 194 questions by Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined awarding 1.03 marks for every correct answer and deducting 0.257 marks for every incorrect answer. According to Mr. Chirag Aayadi, because of the adoption of such a method, the present petitioners are adversely affected, and therefore this petition is filed to seek a direction against the respondents to award them the marks for the deleted or cancelled questions.
5. Learned G.P. Mr. Virk submitted that once the objective examination containing multiple-choice questions was over, it was found that 6 questions were erroneous, and therefore the Recruiting Body decided to cancel those questions as the examination consisted of 200 marks for 200 questions; the 6 marks for the deleted questions were equally distributed among the remaining 194 questions, and thus, instead of 1 mark, 1.030 marks were awarded for each correct answer, and instead of 0.25 marks, 0.257 marks were deducted for each incorrect answer on a pro-rata basis; this was done in view of various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Virk, and as all candidates were treated equally, the petitioners cannot claim that any injustice was caused to them. According to Mr. Virk, when the number of questions was reduced to 194 and the total marks remained 200, the respondents were justified in distributing the 6 marks for the cancelled questions on a pro-rata basis for both correct and Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined incorrect answers, which is neither contrary to the rules nor the examination scheme, and therefore, as the respondents acted in good faith and in accordance with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is misconceived and is required to be dismissed.
6. Learned GP Mr.Virk relied upon following decisions;
1. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. as reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494
2. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. as reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81
3. Decision of this Court in the case of Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya v. State of Gujarat 2022 referred in SCC OnLine Guj 1096.
7. By relying upon paragraph 18 of the decision in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), learned G.P. Mr. Virk submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined in their place deserving candidates be included in the select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. In the instant case, the erroneous questions were identified and deleted, and for those questions marks were allotted on a pro-rata basis to each of the remaining questions, and similarly the deduction for incorrect answers was also made on a pro-rata basis, and therefore the same was done in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. By relying upon paragraphs 25 and 26 of the decision in the case of Rishan and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), learned G.P. Mr. Virk submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view in paragraph 26 that once the questions having been deleted from the answers, in that case, the question paper has to be treated as containing the questions less the deleted questions and therefore, redistribution of mark is permissible on pro-rata basis.
9. Lastly, by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jigar Bharatsingh Kshatriya (supra) and in particular paragraph 30 thereof, learned G.P. Mr. Virk submitted that in the said decision also in similar set of facts, when the Recruiting Body adopted the similar method, the same was Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined approved by the coordinate bench of this Court and therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the present respondents and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed.
10. I have heard the learned advocate for the parties and perused the record.
11. On perusal of the record, I found that originally as per the scheme of exam, the objective exam was consisting of 200 questions for which there were 200 marks. Subsequently, upon completion of examination, it was found that there were error in 6 questions and therefore, those 6 questions were deleted and therefore, it led to a situation where the total marks remain 200 for which there are only 194 questions which can be said to be valid for correct questions. Hence, the respondents have chosen to redistribute the marks and the questions for which initially they allotted one mark, they redistributed the marks and for each question for correct answer, the respondents decided to give 1.030 marks. In the same way, for every incorrect answer for attempted question, instead of 0.25 marks, 0.257 marks were decided to be deducted and, therefore, such redistribution was done on pro- rata basis. Now, the question before the Court is whether such Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined method adopted by the respondent can be said to be valid or not. To consider the issue, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), relied upon by Mr. Virk, as well as other relevant decisions, is required to be examined. In Paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows;
"18. In respect of the respondent-Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re- evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See: Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re- evaluation. The respondent-Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro-rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re- evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein".
12. Similarly, in the case of Rishal vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), in paragraphs 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under;
"25. One of the submissions raised by the appellants is that marks of deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions. It is submitted that either all the candidates should have been given equal marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to have been given only to those candidates who attempted those questions.
26. The questions having been deleted from the answers, the question paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all the candidates have been benefited by the redistributed of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any fault with redistribution of marks Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined of the deleted marks. The High Court has rightly approved the said methodology."
13. Lastly, when a similar situation arose before this Court, the coordinate Bench, in the case of Jigar Bharatsinh Kshatriya (supra), observed the in paragraph 30 as under;
"30. On the contention raised by Shri Majmudar that the marking was changed the explanation in the affidavit is that of the 100 questions since 2 questions were cancelled and the total marks got reduced to 98, in order to normalise the new question paper of 98 questions proportionate changes were made in the scores of answers as well as penalties. Therefore instead of giving one mark for each correct answer the correct question was given 1.02 marks and instead of giving-0.250 marks for the wrong answer the negative marking was made- 0.255. The same process as is adopted by the Gujarat Public Services Commission and the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board was adopted."
14. A cumulative reading of all the aforesaid decisions and more particularly the relevant paragraphs cited by Learned GP Mr. Virk would indicate that in case if certain questions are deleted, in that case the redistribution of marks by the examining body cannot be said to be illegal and that will not render the examination invalid or that will not confer any Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12309/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined benefit to the candidates as all the questions were assigned uniform marks after redistribution and all the students or the candidates were treated similarly. When the Honorable Supreme Court has approved this kind of method, there is no scope for the petitioner to question the same.
15. Accordingly, the decision of respondents of redistributing the marks after deleting the questions or remaining questions cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is required to be dismissed and same is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 20:53:55 IST 2025