Introduction:
In Arati Damjibhai Rangpariya v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (R/Special Civil Application No. 3425 of 2025), the Gujarat High Court was confronted with a troubling instance of alleged administrative indifference and non-compliance with judicial directions. The matter was heard by Justice Nirzar S. Desai, who expressed strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) in responding to the Court’s earlier orders.
The case arose from a recruitment examination conducted by the GPSC, where the petitioner narrowly missed qualifying by just one mark. Challenging the answer key, the petitioner contended that a particular question—based on Arthashastra—was framed on the basis of unauthenticated and unreliable material. The issue gained significance when it emerged that the Commission had relied on a PDF version of the text, without being able to establish its authenticity or even disclose its source.
Previously, the High Court had directed the Commission to clarify whether it had any policy for authenticating such digital material and to explain the basis on which the source used for framing the question was treated as credible. However, when the Commission filed its affidavit in response, the Court found it wholly inadequate and non-responsive.
This led to a sharp judicial rebuke, with the Court going so far as to describe the affidavit as “nothing but contempt.” The proceedings thus evolved into a broader inquiry into institutional accountability, the sanctity of public examinations, and the duty of statutory bodies to comply with judicial orders.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, presented a compelling case challenging both the correctness of the answer key and the procedural lapses of the Commission.
1. Incorrect Answer Key
The petitioner argued that the disputed question, based on the Arthashastra, had been incorrectly evaluated. It was contended that the answer key did not reflect the correct interpretation of the text, thereby unfairly affecting the petitioner’s result.
2. Reliance on Unauthenticated Source
A major plank of the petitioner’s argument was that the Commission had relied on an unauthenticated PDF version of the Arthashastra. It was emphasized that the Commission could neither produce the original book nor specify the source from which the PDF was obtained.
3. Lack of Transparency and Policy
The petitioner highlighted the absence of any clear policy or mechanism for verifying the authenticity of study material used in examinations. This, it was argued, undermined the fairness and credibility of the recruitment process.
4. Non-Compliance with Court Orders
The petitioner further submitted that the Commission had failed to comply with the Court’s earlier directions dated March 16 and March 20. Despite being granted an additional opportunity, the Commission did not address the specific queries raised by the Court.
5. Impact on Candidates’ Future
It was argued that such arbitrary and negligent conduct directly affects the careers and futures of candidates, especially in competitive examinations where even a single mark can be निर्णायक.
Arguments by the Respondent (GPSC and State):
The Gujarat Public Service Commission, through its counsel, attempted to defend its position, though its arguments appeared to lack coherence and substance in the eyes of the Court.
1. Limited Role of the Commission
The Commission contended that its role was primarily administrative and that the preparation of question papers and determination of answers fell within the domain of subject experts.
2. Lack of Responsibility for Content Accuracy
It was argued that the Commission was not responsible for verifying the correctness of answers or the authenticity of the material used by paper setters.
3. Submission of Affidavit
The Commission submitted that it had filed an affidavit addressing the Court’s concerns, though it maintained that certain aspects—such as authentication of sources—were beyond its domain.
4. Request for Additional Time
Faced with the Court’s criticism, the Commission sought additional time to file a more detailed affidavit and to obtain necessary instructions.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Gujarat High Court delivered a series of strong oral observations, reflecting its deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Commission.
1. Affidavit Termed as Contempt
At the outset, the Court categorically stated that the affidavit filed by the Commission did not answer the specific queries posed in its earlier orders. Justice Nirzar S. Desai remarked that the affidavit was “nothing but contempt,” indicating a prima facie case of wilful disobedience.
2. Failure to Comply with Judicial Directions
The Court emphasized that its previous orders were clear and unambiguous. The Commission’s failure to respond adequately, even after multiple opportunities, was seen as a serious lapse.
3. Questioning Institutional Accountability
The Court raised critical questions about the mindset of the Commission’s leadership, asking whether the failure to comply was due to incompetence or deliberate defiance. It observed that such conduct reflected poorly on the institution.
4. Rejection of ‘Limited Role’ Argument
The Court firmly rejected the Commission’s attempt to evade responsibility by attributing the issue to subject experts. It held that the Commission, as the authority conducting the examination, cannot absolve itself of accountability.
5. Importance of Authenticity in Public Examinations
The Court underscored that questions in public examinations must be based on authentic and verifiable sources. The inability to produce the original text or even identify the source of the PDF raised serious concerns about the integrity of the examination process.
6. Warning of Contempt Proceedings
The Court indicated its intention to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission, unless satisfactory explanations were provided.
7. Opportunity for Compliance
Despite its strong remarks, the Court granted a final opportunity to the Commission to file a proper affidavit addressing all queries. The matter was adjourned to allow the Government Pleader to be heard.
8. Larger Implications
The Court’s observations highlight the need for greater accountability in public institutions and reinforce the principle that statutory bodies must act responsibly and transparently, especially when dealing with matters affecting the public at large.