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