'Re-Evaluation Of Answers Prohibited': Gujarat HC Directs Appointment Of 5 Candidates As Section Officers Ousted At Verification Stage

The Gujarat High Court directed the State to carry out the appointment exercise which regard to five meritorious candidates whose candidature to the post of Section Officer was rejected following "re-evaluation" of answer sheet and publishing of revised final result, stating that the rules prohibit re-evaluation, permitting only re-checking. 

It thus said that action of the Gujarat Public Service Commission in accepting applications received by certain candidates seeking re-evaluation was "illegal". It said so after noting that the appellants had reached the stage of verification of documents after they were recommended for appointment. 

Referring to the Deputy Section Officer, Class III and the Deputy Mamlatdar, Class III (Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 2018 a division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi in its order said, "A bare perusal of the provision of Rule 18 reveals that it only pertains to exercise which is to be undertaken for rechecking of marks within a period of 30 days. The clause 17(5) of the advertisement specifically prohibits reevalaution, and it only permits re-checking. Thus, there is no provision prescribed under the Rules, which permits re-evaluation, and on the contrary, the clause of the advertisement does not permit re-evaluation". 

The court observed that in present case the applications of 9 candidates for “reevaluation” were received by the GPSC between dates which was beyond the period of 30 days prescribed for “re-checking”.

"We do not find any provision in the Rule or in the advertisement, which empowers the GPSC to re-evaluate the answer sheet. The GPSC, in guise of “re-checking” has “re-evaluated” the answer sheets, that too beyond the statutory period of 30 days, by accepting the applications filed beyond the cutoff date of re-checking. No provision is pointed to us, which empowers the GPSC to undertake the exercise of “re-evaluation”. The action of the GPSC in accepting such application itself was illegal in light of Clause 17(5) of the Advertisement," it said. 

The court said that even if it is presumed that the GPSC can undertake exercise of “re-evaluation”, the same cannot be at any stage after declaration of the result.Such exercise can only be undertaken within the statutory period, it added.

"The re-evaluation of the marks beyond the specified period at the discretion of the GPSC at any stage will be an anathema to the finalization/conclusion of the result. The final merit list or the result will always remain in the state of flux putting the career of the candidates at peril if such an approach, is allowed to be adopted. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision and in view of Clause 17(5) of the Advertisement, it was not permissible for the GPSC to accept the applications for re-evaluation after the cut-off date of re-checking. If the application for re-checking is made impermissible after 23.09.2019, the applications seeing re-evaluation which are received beyond the cut-off date cannot be accepted, and as a sequel, no action of re-evaluation was permissible...In the present case, the appellant's case has reached upto the stage of verification of the documents, after they were recommended for appointment, and they were ousted from the list of successful candidates for want of less than one mark on the applications seeking reevaluation, which was not permissible under the statutory rules," it added. 

Allowing the plea the court directed the respondents to issue the appointment and posting orders to the appellants, "after undertaking necessary exercise of document verification"; in case, nothing is found adverse against the appellants after document verification, they shall be issued the appointment orders.

The court directed that the entire exercise, including the issuance of appointment and posting orders, shall be completed within a period of six weeks.

"It is clarified that the appellants shall not claim any service benefit of past period. All the service benefits, including seniority, shall be counted from the date of the appointment orders," the court added. 

Background:

Originally before the single judge a writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging a 2020 Corrigendum issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) declaring revised final results in respect of the combined competitive examinations (main) for recruitment to the posts of Deputy Section Officer (State Secretariat), Deputy Section Officer (GPSC), Deputy Section Officer (Vidhan Sabha) and Deputy Section Officer (Mamlatdar) (Revenue Department) Class-III.

The GPSC published an advertisement for recruitment of Class-III Posts in September 2018. Preliminary examinations were held on 21.02.2019. Main examinations were held on 19.05.2019 and 26.05.2019.

The final results of the main examination were declared on 13.09.2019. The appellants were declared successful, and accordingly, the GPSC informed the appellants on 30.09.2019 that their names are recommended to the State Government for appointment. Accordingly, the appellants were called for document verification on 09.10.2019, and on 07.11.2019. 

The GPSC published a notice on 17.09.2019 calling upon the candidates for rechecking of marks, and in case they are willing to do so, they shall apply within a period of 30 days and the last date for rechecking was fixed as 23.10.2019.

In view of receipt of applications filed by nine candidates from 04.12.2019 to 18.12.2019 pointing out an error in one of the answer keys of sub question No.XII of question No.8 of the paper book from choice (A) to (B), the GPSC referred the same for expert opinion.

The GPSC, after taking experts opinion, rectified the error and vide Corrigendum dated 10.01.2020, the marks were reallocated. This resulted in selection of 12 earlier unsuccessful candidates and ouster of 12 candidates, including appellants (petitioners) and hence, the writ petition was filed. The Single Judge, after hearing the respective parties, rejected the writ petition, against which appellants moved before the division bench

The appellants argued that in absence of any provisions, the GPSC has no powers to re-evaluate the results after declaration. It was argued that there was no such provision, where either on an application by candidates or suo moto and hence the appraisal of a question in its entirety and awarding marks thereon, after the results had already been declared, cannot be termed as anything other than re-evaluation.

The GPSC argued that appellants were declared unsuccessful on the re-evaluation of the answer key to the sub question No.XII of question No.8 of Paper Book from choice (A) to (B) of Paper-II pertaining to English grammar and the same was done in view of the representations received by 9 candidates. It was argued that the matter was referred to the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee thereafter, opined that the answer key to such question was incorrect and the result was again altered, which resulted into the ouster of the appellants and inclusion of the candidates who had suffered because of the mistake committed in the answer key. Referring to Rule 20 of the Rules of 2018, it was submitted that the candidates have no right to be appointed even if their name figures in select list.

Case title: UMESHKUMAR PRATAPSINH PARMAR & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 66