Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Subordinate Services Selection Board's (GSSSSB) shifting stance on a fundamental economics principle—the law of demand—triggered a legal battle after it treated two different answers to the same question as correct in recruitment exams held eight years apart.
Background of the Dispute
In 2016, the board's answer key held that the relationship between demand and price is direct. However, in 2024, it insisted that the association is inverse. The controversy erupted when the 2024 recruitment test for research assistants included a multiple-choice question: "What is the relationship between demand and price?" While some candidates selected option B, "direct," the official answer key declared option C, "inverse," as correct.
Board's Inconsistency
The Board revised its answer key three times, correcting 22 answers, but questions remained over four questions, including the one on the law of demand. The dispute reached the Gujarat High Court when candidates raised objections. Three questions were resolved during year-long proceedings, but two candidates persisted, challenging the answer to the law of demand relation. They were only one mark short of the qualifying marks needed to advance to the next stage of recruitment.
Candidates' Arguments
The candidates' counsel argued that their answer 'direct' was correct because GSSSB had accepted the same answer in a 2016 recruitment test for the same posts. Though the Board revised the 2016 answer key four times, it retained option B, "direct," as correct, not option C, "inverse." The petitioners argued that an economic principle cannot change over eight years and that the Board's inconsistency showed confusion over the law of demand. They contended that the benefit of doubt should go to the candidates.
Court Proceedings
In September 2025, the High Court allowed the two candidates to participate in the next round of recruitment and stayed the appointment of eight other candidates whose merit positions could be affected if option B were accepted. Those eight candidates later joined the case, maintaining that option C was correct.
Expert Opinion
On April 23, the Board placed an expert opinion before the court stating that option C, "inverse," was correct. The government, however, said the certificate containing the expert opinion was confidential and urged the court not to formally take it on record. After seeking an affidavit, the High Court accepted the Board's stand and dismissed the petition. With that, both candidates remained short by one correct answer and failed to clear the cut-off.
Justice's Observation
Justice Nirzar Desai, after perusing the expert opinion, stated: "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 examining body and not in favour of the candidate, the prayers made in this petition cannot be granted and the same are required to be rejected."
