6 July 2022 8:14 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that no writ can lie on the principle that candidates have a legitimate expectation to get their raw marks known or attempt answer keys. It was further remarked, "merely because the apprehension of the petitioners is that they had got less marks than expected is no ground on which a challenge to the adoption of normalization procedure can...
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that no writ can lie on the principle that candidates have a legitimate expectation to get their raw marks known or attempt answer keys. It was further remarked, "merely because the apprehension of the petitioners is that they had got less marks than expected is no ground on which a challenge to the adoption of normalization procedure can be sustained."
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav was hearing an SCA seeking direction to the State Government to declare the attempt answer keys and raw marks of the Petitioners and further elaborate the normalisation method of the examination. It was prayed that the authorities should not initiate the process of awarding appointment letters to selected candidates till the disposal of the petition.
The Petitioners were candidates who had appeared for the recruitment process in an advertisement of 2019 for the posts of 'Vidhyut Sahayaks'. The test results were declared in 2021. The Petitioners were hopeful to get their raw marks and attempt answers keys of the examinations. It was claimed that the electricity companies had uploaded the answer keys but had removed them from the official website after some time. The RTI filed by the Petitioners in this regard was rejected.
It was primarily contested by the Petitioners that they had the 'fundamental right' to know their raw marks and the answer keys for the sake of transparency. To bring home this contention, reliance was placed on Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad 2018(3) ApexCJ 359. Further, it was evident from the answer keys that one of the candidates got 104/100 due to which the results were removed from the website. Finally, it was submitted that permitting candidates to see the marks would ensure fair play as was laid down in Kerala Public Service Commission and Others vs. The State Information Commission and Others Civil Appeal No 823-854 of 2016.
The Respondent opposed the petition on the ground that it was clearly stated that normalisation of marks methodology would be adopted. The general rules of the examination did not allow for disclosure of raw marks and therefore, no objection could be raised by the Petitioners after subjecting themselves to the examination process. Further, the Respondent authorities opposed the prayer for restraining the award of appointment letters. Reference was made to Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 to bolster this contention.
Referring to the recruitment advertisement, the High Court concluded that it was known to the candidates that the examination would be held in multiple batches if the number of candidates is too large. It was further stated that normalisation methodology would be utilised for finalising the scores. The Bench disagreed with the Petitioners with regard to the disclosure of raw marks by opining that merely because the Petitioners were unemployed individuals who would benefit from the disclosure of marks, there was no ground basis which such a writ could be granted.
Perusing the normalisation methodology in detail, the High Court held that the Petitioners could not have a legitimate expectation to get their marks known. Accordingly, the petitions were rejected.
Case Title: JAYESH NEBHABHAI KAMBARIYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Case No.: C/SCA/6805/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 257
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment