Judiciary Aspirant's Answer To A Question Not Evaluated: Orissa HC Cautions Public Service Commission, Orders ₹1 Lakh Compensation

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

4 Feb 2025 2:45 PM IST

  • Judiciary Aspirants Answer To A Question Not Evaluated: Orissa HC Cautions Public Service Commission, Orders ₹1 Lakh Compensation

    The Orissa High Court on Monday orally criticised the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for "haphazard scrutiny" which resulted in non-evaluation of a long question carrying 12.5 marks of a candidate of Odisha Judicial Service Examination-2022.Acknowledging the serious flaw in marking process highlighted by the petitioner, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and...

    The Orissa High Court on Monday orally criticised the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for "haphazard scrutiny" which resulted in non-evaluation of a long question carrying 12.5 marks of a candidate of Odisha Judicial Service Examination-2022.

    Acknowledging the serious flaw in marking process highlighted by the petitioner, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash said –

    “…her case underscores a critical issue as to had she not requested her answer script, she would have not known about the non-evaluation of one question. The Petitioner's case, while unsuccessful, has highlighted a critical flaw in the system and her grievance regarding the non-evaluation of a question was legitimate and genuine one.”

    Case Background

    The petitioner Jyotirmayee Dutta, after successfully qualifying the Preliminary Examination of the Odisha Judicial Service-2022, had appeared for the Mains Written Examination. She had taken 'Law of Property' as an optional paper, apart from two other optional papers and two compulsory papers.

    Though she fetched reasonably high scores in all other papers, but she was given a meagre score of 53 marks in the paper of 'Law of Property'. She was short of only 5 marks to qualify the Mains examination. Having impressive academic credentials and being confident of her answers, she applied for copy of her answer scripts, which was provided to her only after seven months of publication of final merit list.

    Upon perusal of the answer sheet, she discovered that a long question carrying 12.5 marks was left without being evaluated at all. Apart from non-evaluation, she also found that most of her answers were evaluated in a cursory manner without adhering to the scheme of evaluation and despite having all characteristics of ideal answers, those were given unreasonably low marks.

    Being aggrieved by non-evaluation as well as unreasonable marking, she knocked the doors of the High Court by filing this writ petition.

    Contentions of Parties

    Advocate Srinivas Mohanty, appearing for the petitioner, argued that a simple perusal of the answer-sheets of the petitioner prima facie shows arbitrary and flawed evaluation process loaded with subjective biases of evaluators.

    He asserted that an answer in the paper of Law of Property was left unevaluated and claimed that the evaluation of other answers was inconsistent and unfair, despite her responses meeting the criteria for ideal answers, including proper introductions, legal provisions, maxims, case laws and conclusions.

    He emphasized that such arbitrary marking prevented the petitioner from qualifying for the viva voce stage by a narrow margin of five marks. He further contended that the evaluation was contrary to the scheme of evaluation adopted in previous years, which aims to ensure uniformity and fairness in the marking process.

    Senior Advocate PK Mohanty, appearing for the OPSC, denied arbitrary evaluation. He further clarified, by filing affidavit, that there is no specific written 'scheme of evaluation'; instead, the Chief Examiner provides verbal guidelines to ensure uniformity. Moreover, he argued that the recruitment process for the OJS-2022 has already concluded, rendering the petitioner's claims infructuous.

    Court's Observations

    After considering the oral as well as written submissions of the respective parties, the Court framed two fundamental questions, viz. (i) whether marks were not awarded for any question in the petitioner's answer script, and, (ii) if so, whether the petitioner would succeed in the examination after the evaluation of the unmarked answers.

    The Court refuted the argument of the OPSC regarding bar of re-evaluation of answer scripts after conclusion of examination and held –

    “However, having regard to the facts in the present case, the above contention appears irrelevant. The issue here is not of re-evaluation but of non-evaluation. The Petitioner has demonstrated, and it is apparent from the answer script, that while her answer to sub-question 5(b) was evaluated and marks was awarded, her answer to sub-question 5(a) was left unmarked by the Examiner.”

    The Court rejected the vehement contention raised by the senior counsel for the OPSC that re-evaluation is not permitted and any order for re-evaluation shall set a wrong precedent. It succinctly differentiated between 're-evaluation' and 'non-evaluation' and said that non-evaluation pertains to an examiner's failure to assess an answer altogether, which is a procedural lapse and violates the principles of fairness and due process.

    “As seen, the Petitioner's plea for rectification of an unevaluated answer does not involve a challenge to the examiner's discretion or marking scheme but seeks judicial intervention to correct an apparent omission. Such omissions undermine the credibility of the examination process and can adversely affect the outcome for candidates. Therefore, the Court, in the interest of justice, can order corrective measures, as it falls within its jurisdiction to address procedural irregularities that lead to arbitrary or unfair results.”

    Being satisfied that the examiner has left answer to question no. 5(a) unevaluated, which carried a substantial 12.5 marks, the Court deemed it proper to order an independent re-evaluation by expert academic professionals.

    Accordingly, it had directed the OPSC to send the petitioner's answer script to three reputed universities – National Law University, Cuttack; M.S. Law University, Cuttack; and Law University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar for the evaluation by their respective Vice-Chancellors or subject experts.

    After independent evaluation by the three aforesaid universities, the scores were placed before the Court in sealed covers. It revealed that the three universities certified that the answer had not been evaluated and assigned their respective marks.

    The Court resorted to get the average of three separate marks given by the three universities, which ultimately came to 3.5 marks. After adding the average marks, the petitioner was short of only 1.5 marks from qualifying the Mains examination.

    “After adding the average marks awarded for sub-question 5(a) (i.e., 3.5) to the Petitioner's original score of 53 in the “Law of Property” paper, her revised total becomes 56.5. Despite this, the Petitioner's overall score remains insufficient for qualification in the OJS Mains examination,” it observed.

    Critical Flaw Of OPSC

    The Court further remarked that though the petitioner was unsuccessful in getting the desired relief, nonetheless her case underscored a critical issue of procedural impropriety which would not have come to the fore unless she had applied for her answer scripts.

    “Through her efforts, she succeeded in bringing to the Court's attention a procedural lapse that demands rectification. In any other circumstances as the one in front of us, this lapse would have gone unnoticed, potentially altering the candidate's chances of proceeding to the next round, or they could have successfully gone ahead for the next round in the selection process. Nevertheless, we presume, that this could be the solitary case,” it added.

    The judgment authored by Justice Dash further remarked that if such cases arise, it may raise the alarming possibility that similar errors may be affecting other candidates who remain unaware of the lapse. It disapproved such errors as 'unacceptable', particularly in examinations like the OJS, where accuracy and integrity in marking are paramount.

    “Needless to mention how competitive examinations are the cornerstone of countless aspirations. For a large number of young individuals, these exams represent years of relentless preparation, often involving rigorous schedules, significant financial investments by families, and personal sacrifices. The stakes for these aspirants are extraordinarily high, as these exams often determine the trajectory of their future,” it added.

    It, therefore, directed the OPSC to exercise the highest level of scrutiny and adopt rigorous quality control measures during the evaluation process to ensure that the entire process is carried out with the utmost care, fairness, and diligence.

    “Examiners and authorities must remain vigilant, as even a minor oversight can irreparably damage a candidate's hopes, undermine their hard work, and shake the trust placed in the examination system. O.P. No.2-OPSC is expected to take this responsibility with the seriousness it demands, as fairness and accuracy are non-negotiable in competitive examinations that hold the dreams of millions.”

    Before parting with the order, the Court acknowledged the efforts of the petitioner in pursuing the case to highlight the flaw with the recruitment agency and ordered a compensation of rupees one lakh, which is to be paid by the OPSC in sixty days, for the mental trauma and financial burden endured by her during the course of this case.

    While dismissing the case, the Court clarified that the compensation is awarded to acknowledge the procedural flaw brought to light and to serve as a 'reminder' for OPSC to maintain stricter scrutiny in its evaluation processes.

    Case Title: Jyotirmayee Dutta v. State of Odisha & Ors.

    Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 21703 of 2024

    Date of Judgment: February 03, 2025

    Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate

    Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Debasish Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State; Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate for OPSC

    Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 17

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Next Story