Orissa High Court: In a petition challenging the legality and validity of the evaluation process in the Odisha Judicial Service Examination (OJS), 2022 and sought evaluation of the left-out answer script by Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) in the law of Property and other questions as per the guidelines provided under the scheme of evaluation, the Division Bench of Chittaranjan Dash* and SK Sahoo, JJ. partly entertained the plea as to highlighting a procedural flaw and directed OPSC to maintain stricter scrutiny in its evaluation processes.
However, even after re-evaluation of the answer script, the petitioner was not eligible for the next stage of the examination.
Background
The present petitioner appeared for the OJS Main Exam 2022. Despite her impressive academic credentials, she could not qualify for the next stage of the OJS examination by a narrow margin of five marks. The Petitioner secured 94 marks in General English, 86 marks in Procedural Law, 78 marks in Jurisprudence and the Constitution of India, and 74 marks in the Law of Crimes and Law of Torts. However, she received only 53 marks in the Law of Property paper, which she claims resulted from non-evaluation and improper valuation of her answers, specifically Question No. 5(a). The petitioner alleges that Question No. 5(a) in the Law of Property paper was left unevaluated, and its marks were not added to the total. Additionally, she contends that other answers, despite meeting all criteria for an ideal response such as proper introductions, essential conditions, relevant legal provisions, Latin legal maxims, case laws, and conclusions were awarded unreasonably low marks, contrary to the scheme of evaluation.
Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Court 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.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the ‘Law of Property’ question weighed total of 150 marks, with all questions carrying equal value. Candidates were required to answer six questions, selecting two questions from each of the three sections — A, B, and C. The petitioner’s answer script revealed that she opted to answer Question No. 5 from Section B, which was divided into two sub-questions, 5(a) and 5(b). The petitioner’s grievance was that while marks were awarded for her answer to sub-question 5(b), the examiner failed to award any marks for her answer to sub-question 5(a).
Rejecting the OPSC’s contention relying upon Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar PSC, (2004) 6 SCC 714, which explicitly bars re-evaluation unless expressly provided in the examination rules, the Court said that the issue at hand was not of re-evaluation but of non-evaluation. The Court said that it was apparent from the answer script, that while her answer to sub-question 5(b) was evaluated and marks were awarded, her answer to sub-question 5(a) was left unmarked by the Examiner.
The Court on perusal of the answer scripts said that it was confirmed by all three universities that sub-question 5(a) in Section B was not evaluated earlier. Subsequently, each university assigned marks for the answer, and the average of the marks awarded by the three universities was calculated to be 3.5. 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 came out to 56.5. The Court said that despite this, the petitioner’s overall score remained insufficient for qualification in the OJS Mains examination. Therefore, the Court held that while the petitioner’s grievance regarding the non-evaluation of sub-question 5(a) was valid and had rectified, the outcome of her examination remained unchanged, and she did not qualify for the next stage of the recruitment process.
The Court said that non-evaluation pertained to an examiner’s failure to assess an answer altogether, which is a procedural lapse and violated the principles of fairness and due process, for which, this Court entertained this petition in part. The Court held that 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.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s case, while unsuccessful, highlighted a critical flaw in the system and her grievance regarding the non-evaluation of a question was legitimate and genuine. The Court said that through her efforts, she brought to the Court’s attention a procedural lapse that demands rectification.
“If such cases arise, it may raise the alarming possibility that similar errors may be affecting other candidates who remain unaware of the lapse. Such errors are unacceptable, particularly in examinations like the OJS, where accuracy and integrity in marking are paramount.”
“The stakes for these aspirants are extraordinarily high, as these exams often determine the trajectory of their future.”
Hence, the Court directed 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. The Court said that OPSC was 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.
The Court said that the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-evaluation was partly addressed through the Court’s intervention, and it was found that the evaluation process had a procedural lapse, the results did not alter her eligibility for the next stage of the examination. However, considering the mental trauma and financial burden the petitioner endured in pursuing this case to highlight the said lapse, the Court awarded compensation of ₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the OPSC within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment.
[Jyotirmayee Dutta v. State of Odisha, WP(C) No. 21703 of 2024, decided on: 03-02-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Chittaranjan Dash
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate
For the respondent: Debasish Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate, P. K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, Pronoy Mohanty
