Orissa High Court

Twinkle Sen vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 27 May, 2022

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              W.P.(C) No.32984 of 2021
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).

Twinkle Sen                                  ....       Petitioner
                            -versus-
State of Odisha and Ors.                     ....      Opp. Parties


 Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioners         :   Mr. Manas Pati, Adv.

                            -versus-
For Opp. Parties            :   Mr. B.K Mohanty, Adv.
                                & Mr. S.S Rao, Adv.
                                (for O.P.2)

        CORAM:
           MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

          DATE OF HEARING:-19.05.2022
         DATE OF JUDGMENT:-27.05.2022

  S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The present petition has been directed against the improper evaluation of answer paper in the Odisha Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test (OSSTET) 2021; whereby the Petitioner assails the evaluation method and the final selection list and has preferred an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of the matter presented before this court remain that the petitioner had applied for the post of Hindi Teacher and appeared for the OSSTET Examination at Ravenshaw Girls High School, Cuttack on 04.10.2021.

5. The petitioner was quite hopeful and confident of getting qualified owing to her performance in the OSSTET Examination. However, to her dismay, she had scored 88 marks, while the cutoff for female candidates with UR Category was 90.

6. The petitioner has contended that answer to Question nos.30, 102 & 105, insofar as the Answer Key provided by the Opposite Party is concerned, is different in comparison to other authentic sources i.e., from standard textbooks taught to students, internet etc. The petitioner has submitted that the correct answers to above-mentioned question numbers is 30-B, 102-D, 105-C as opposed to 30-A, 102-D, 105-C which has been provided in the Answer Key released by the Opposite Party.

7. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 26.10.2021, the Question Analysis Committee has considered the matter and an Information Sheet dated 28.10.2021 and bearing Memo no. 832 has been filed offering the following views:

"The objections received alongwith supporting documents on question nos.30, 102 and 105, Paper-I, Set-C of OSSTET-

2021 were placed before the Question Analysis Committee....As per the recommendation of the committee, the answers to questions provided by the Board are correct."

8. Indisputably, in the case at hand, this Court is of the view that the answer key prepared by the Opp. Parties or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. Moreover, the discrepancies assailed in relation to the questions at issue, has been categorically redressed by the Opposite Parties through Information Sheet dated 28.10.2021.

9. In the present case, this Court needs to see what is legally possible and not what possibly dehors the legal process. A thing that may seem plausible on the grounds of natural justice may not be possible legally. As succinctly put by Mathew, J in his judgment in the Union of India v. M.L. Kapur1, "It is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the Audi alterampartem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be".

10. This Court having gone through the counter affidavit is of the considered view that adequate precautions have been taken before evaluation of the answer scripts and when the expert committee has already taken the decision, this court will be at loathe to substitute its own view. If the view taken by the

W.P. No. 20894 (W) of 2013

technical expert can evaluate the answer when there is mistake in question-and-answer scripts, it is for all the candidates and there can be no discrimination. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vrs. Paritosh Bhupash Kumarsheth2. The paragraph 29 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

"Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one was to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering

AIR 1984 S.C. 1543

the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case."

11. In the case of H.P Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"It was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court."

12. In a similar situation where the discrepancies in relation to answer key published and grievances were considered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Richal and Ors. vrs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.4 observed that:

"The key answers prepared by the paper setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations.

To err is human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect

Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006

(2018) 8 SCC 81

key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections against the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process."

13. It would be relevant to refer to decision in Ranvijay Singh and Others vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others5 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter alia hold that sympathy has no role to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Another point which cannot be lost sight that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vrs. Arun Kumar and others6 has been pleased to inter alia hold that re- evaluation undertaken by the High Court has not solved but contributed to chaos. Therefore, in absence of any guideline, re-evaluation would lead to utter confusion.

14. From the conspectus of factual matrix, this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by the Question Analysis committee doesn't suffer from any infirmities. It would suffice to state that the procedure evolved by the Board for ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation of the answer books has made

(2018) 2 SCC 357

(2020) 6 SCC 362

the system as fool proof as can be possible and it meets the satisfaction and approval of this court.

15. After giving anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the decisions cited at the Bar, this Court is not persuaded to accede to the prayer of the petitioner.