Orissa High Court Orders Interview For Candidate In 2023 District Judge Exam After Her Marks Found To Be 'Manipulated'

Taking into account the forensic report of the answer script of the candidate who had been fighting the case since February 2024, the Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed–

“Considering the said report and opinion dated 25.08.2025 of the Orissa Police State FSL, we are of the view that the written answer script of Paper-III (General English) of the petitioner was subsequently manipulated where figures of the marks obtained by her in the said Paper-III was subsequently changed by overwriting that too in different ink with edition of short signature, indicating that there was manipulation of figure (marks) in different ink as well as overwriting in different ink.”

The petitioner Geetanjali Majhi submitted online application for appearing in the written examination for recruitment to the post of District Judge from the Bar for the year 2023. She appeared in the written examination held on 05.11.2023, and result thereof was published on 08.01.2024. The results reflected that no candidate could qualify the written examination.

For context, the written examination consists of three Papers carrying 100 marks each. The three papers are broadly divided as the Civil Law Paper, the Criminal Law Paper and the General English/Language Paper. As per the rules of the Examination, which is governed by the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007, a candidate appearing in the written test must obtain 45% in each paper and 50% in aggregate to qualify for the interview.

The score-sheet of the aforesaid examination was published on the website of the High Court on 09.01.2024. The petitioner scored 65, 52 and 42 in the three papers respectively. Therefore, though she was well ahead of the 45% threshold in the first two papers, she was just 3 marks behind the qualifying score in the Paper-III (General English). She applied for the copy of her answer script, which was supplied to her on 13.02.2024.

Upon perusal of the answer script, she in fact found to have scored 45 in the Paper-III which was mis-computed and indicated as 42 on the front page of the answer script dedicated for tabulation of marks obtained in each question. Being aggrieved by such grave error, she knocked the doors of the High Court through this writ petition since had the computation been correct, she would have qualified to appear in the interview.

The opposite party authorities filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that as per the mark-sheet available on the website, the petitioner failed to score the minimum qualifying mark of 45 in the Paper-III. Further, they apprised the Court that the process of the recruitment for the year 2023 had already been concluded. Nevertheless, they fairly submitted that the petitioner would be eligible to face the interview if the Court concludes that she scored 45 and not 42 in Paper-III.

During an earlier hearing on 18.07.2025 before the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, the Court had perused the answer script and had observed as follows –

“We have very carefully perused the answer script by following the pages and meticulously applied our mind to the entries of values as against answers given by the evaluator. We are of the prima facie opinion that there are some interpolations of the values and more particularly at page-1 of the answer script. Doubts arise in our mind as to the ink and Author of the apparent alterations being different from the original one. Truth should be ascertained since the matter pertains to appointment of judicial officer in the lower judiciary.”

Accordingly, the Court had then ordered for forensic examination of the answer script to determine whether a different author manipulated the awarded marks with a different ink subsequent to the original evaluation. The forensic report was submitted by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) on 25.08.2025, which concluded that there was a manipulation in the score-sheet with a different ink subsequent to the original evaluation.

On 12.03.2026, the opposite parties filed another affidavit by deposing that they took into consideration the marks awarded against each answer in Paper-III and it was found that the petitioner had in fact scored '45' instead of '42'. They submitted that there was a mistake in computation of marks in the evaluation sheet for which the aggregate mark got reduced to 42.

Considering the clear forensic report and admission made by the opposite parties, the Court remarked –

“From the said report and opinion dated 25.08.2025 of the Orissa Police State FSL, Bhubaneswar that on due and proper examination of the written answer script of Paper-III (General English) of the petitioner, we found that marks and the figures obtained by the petitioner in her Paper-III (General English) was subsequently changed by overwriting that too in different ink with edition of short signature, indicating that there was manipulation of figure (marks) in different ink as well as overwriting in different ink.”

Accordingly, the Court acceded to the prayer made by the petitioner and asked Registrar General to place the matter before the Chief Justice on his administrative side to constitute a board/panel consisting of Judges of the High Court to take fresh interview of the petitioner since she was found to have successfully crossed the minimum qualifying threshold in the written examination.

Case Title: Geetanjali Majhi v. The Registrar General, Orissa High Court, Cuttack & Anr.

Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4698 of 2024

Date of Judgment: August 18, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 96