Judiciary Aspirant's 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 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 BackgroundThe 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 PartiesAdvocate 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 ObservationsAfter 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...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers