No Ambiguity Permitted In Framing Of Questions, One Clear Answer Should Be The Norm: Gujarat HC Grants Interim Relief To Examinees

"These petitioners apparently prima-facie appear to be the victims of framing of questions which appeared to be ambiguous or confusing. In the case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others 1983 4 SCC 309, which has been followed by the decisions while warning of judicial restraint, the Court has recommended that there must be a system of avoiding ambiguity in questions. This is one case where the two questions appear to be ambiguous," the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav observed.

The bench was confronted with Article 226 petitions moved by candidates aspiring for the posts of Gujarat Administrative Service Class-I, Gujarat Civil Services Class- I and Class-II and Gujarat Municipal Chief Officers Service Class-II. The Court granted the interim relief and permitted the Petitioners to appear for written examinations on 27^th August.

They had appeared for preliminary examinations and had found that three questions required a 're-look.' The Bench observed that two questions had multiple answers and there was some reservation regarding the third question. The Petitioners relied on Sunilkumar Singh and others v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others to establish that in the event of ambiguity in answers in a time-bound examination, the Courts can interfere akin to how the Allahabad High Court had intervened in the aforesaid case.

However, the Gujarat Public Service Commission cautioned the court of judicial restraint in such issues by relying on precedents.

The High Court affirmed the view of the Allahabad HC that there can be only one correct answer and the question must contain a clue to the same ie, it should not be misleading in nature.

Keeping in view the scope of limited judicial interference, the High Court allowed the Petitioners to appear for the written examinations scheduled on 27^th August for the purpose of recruitment.

However, it directed that the results of the Petitioners should be kept in 'sealed cover' while clarifying: "merely because the petitioners are permitted to appear in the examination, will not entitle them to claim equities in their favour."

Case No.: C/SCA/3330/2022

Case Title: NIRBHAYSINH VIJAYSINH RAULJI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Click Here To Read/Download Order