Gujarat High Court: In a letters patent appeal filed by candidates who succeeded the 2019 Gujarat Public Service Commission (‘GPSC’) exam for recruitment to Class-III Posts but were later denied appointment due to re-evaluation of marks making them unqualified for the want of less than one mark, the Division Bench of A.S. Supehia* and Gita Gopi, JJ., allowed the appeal holding that there was no provision allowing the re-evaluation, much less beyond the 30-day statutory re-checking period.
Background
In 2018, the GPSC published an advertisement (‘the advertisement’) for recruitment to Class-III Posts. In the final result of the examinations, the appellants (‘candidates’) were declared successful, and accordingly, the GPSC informed the candidates that their names were recommended to the State Government for appointment.
Later, it was discovered that an error was found in one of the answer keys and accordingly, the GPSC reallocated the marks which led to the ouster of the present aspirants. Aggrieved, the candidates filed a writ petition challenging the corrigendum. However, it was rejected.
Hence, the present appeal.
Issue
Whether the GPSC can re-evaluate the answer-sheets of the candidates after publication of the merit list and declare them as unsuccessful after the recommendation of their appointment.
Analysis
Upon a bare perusal of Rule 18 of the Deputy Section Officer, Class III and the Deputy Mamlatdar, Class III (Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”), the Court noted that it only pertains to rechecking of marks exercise which is to be undertaken within 30 days. The Clause 17(5) of the advertisement specifically prohibits re-evaluation, and it only permits re-checking. Thus, the Court held that there was no provision prescribed permitting re-evaluation under the Rules or the advertisement.
In the present case, the Court noted that the final result was published on 13-09-2019 and the applications of 9 candidates for “re-evaluation” were received by the GPSC on 04-12-2019 to 18-12-2019, which are indubitably beyond the period of 30 days prescribed for “re-checking”. Finding no provision in the Rules or in the advertisement which empowers the GPSC to re-evaluate the answer sheet, the Court stated that GPSC, in guise of “re-checking” had “re-evaluated” the answer sheets, that too beyond the statutory period of 30 days, by accepting the applications filed beyond the cut-off date of re-checking. Further, the action of the GPSC in accepting such applications itself was illegal in light of Clause 17(5) of the Advertisement.
The Court stated that even if it was presumed that the GPSC can undertake exercise of “re-evaluation”, the same could not be done after the declaration of the result. Such exercise could only be undertaken within the statutory period. The re-evaluation of the marks beyond the specified period at the discretion of the GPSC at any stage would be an anathema to the finalization/conclusion of the result. The final merit list or the result would always remain in the state of flux putting the career of the candidates at peril if such an approach was allowed to be adopted.
Hence, in absence of any enabling provision and in view of Clause 17(5) of the Advertisement, the Court held that it was not permissible for the GPSC to accept the applications for re-evaluation after the cut-off date of re-checking and conduct the said re-evaluation.
The Court remarked that in the present case, the case of the candidates had reached till the stage of document verification, after they were recommended for appointment, before they were ousted from the list of successful candidates for want of less than one mark.
The Court placed reliance on Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 wherein it was held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. Thus, the Court held that in the present case, the 9 applicants who sought re-evaluation of the answer sheet had no legal right to claim re-evaluation of the answer book/sheet and hence, the GPSC ought to have rejected the applications.
Noting that the Single Judge rejected the writ petition by exclusively placing reliance on State v. Umesh Kumar (2020) 10 SCC 448, the Court stated that there cannot be any cavil on the proposition of law as declared by the Apex Court in the said case, however, the same would not apply to the present case. In the case of Umesh Kumar (supra), the entire process of recruitment was put in abeyance since the results were challenged before the Tribunal, and the revised result, after re-evaluation of the answer sheets, was declared even before the offers of appointment were made. In the present case, the recruitment was never kept in abeyance, and the stage had reached up to the recommendation of appointment to the State Government and only the document verification was left. Furthermore, the issue of absence of any enabling provision of re-evaluation was neither raised nor dealt with in the aforesaid case, unlike the present case. Hence, the Court held that the Single Judge erred in rejecting the writ petition by applying the ratio of Umesh Kumar (supra).
Rejecting the reliance placed by the GPSC on Rule 20 of the Rules, the Court said that it was misconceived since Rule 20 could not be invoked in the present case for validating the illegal and arbitrary action of the GPSC. The Court reiterated that the candidate does not have indefeasible right of appointment merely because he/she is placed in the select list, but the appointment of selected candidates cannot be denied arbitrarily. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47.
Further, the Court noted that admittedly, no recruitment was undertaken by the GPSC for the post of Deputy Mamlatdar after the present recruitment. Some of the candidates had also withdrawn their names from the appointment of the posts, and the posts were vacant. Additionally, such vacant posts had to be carried forward to be filled in the next recruitment process. However, the Court stated that the plight of the candidates could not be ignored.
Due to the legitimate expectation garnered by the candidates of being posted after the recommendation of their appointment, they did not participate in the subsequent recruitment process. Thus, in light of the peculiar facts, and in order to meet the ends of justice, the Court held that the candidates could not be denied the appointments.
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal thereby quashing the impugned corrigendum to the extent of declaring only the candidates as unsuccessful. The GPSC was directed to issue appointment and posting orders of the candidates after undertaking necessary exercise of document verification within six weeks.
[Umeshkumar Pratapsinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No. 849 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 3714 of 2020, decided on 24-04-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice A.S. Supehia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellants: Megha Jani
For the respondent: AGP Nirali Sarda, Harsheel D Shukla, and SP Kotia