Orissa High Court
Swetalina Patra vs State Of Odisha And Anr on 31 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.37263 of 2021
Swetalina Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Nath Sharma, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and Anr. .... Opposite
Parties
Mr. S. Mishra, SC
(For S & ME Deptt.)
CORAM:
Mr. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 31.05.2022
7.
1.
This matter is taken up by 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 and preparation of question cum
answer key in the Computer Based Test (CBT) for the
recruitment of Contractual Hindi, Sanskrit and
Physical Education Teachers in Govt. Secondary
Schools of the State of Odisha, 2021, pursuant to
Advertisement dated 13.08.2021 issued by the
Directorate of Secondary Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar; whereby the Petitioner assailing the the
evaluation method, preferred this Writ Petition
invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
// 2 //
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of the
matter presented before this Court remains that the
Petitioner is a resident of Chudanga Sahi, P.O- Puri
Town, Dist- Puri. The Petitioner, pursuant to
Advertisement dated 13.08.2021, applied for the post
of Hindi Teacher and appeared for the designated
Computer Based Test (CBT) at College of Management
and Technology, Puri (CMT), Balighat, Puri-Konark
Marine Drive Road, Near Dena Bank, District- Puri.
5. The petitioner was quite hopeful and confident of
getting qualified owing to her satisfactory performance
in the CBT. However, to her dismay, she had scored
22.25 marks out of 90, falling short of only 0.25 marks
from the qualifying marks (22.50) by less than one
mark.
6. Further, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that
question no.2786705 is out of syllabus and against
question no.2786694 the opposite parties have chosen
wrong answer. Therefore, it constitutes a plausible
ground for awarding grace marks to the Petitioner.
Moreover, the learned counsel submits that the
petitioner being 32 year old would be barred by age
and rendered ineligible to appear for examinations of
similar kind in future.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party
No.2, it has been stated that the petitioner had not
raised objection to any question or answer at the
// 3 //
appropriate time of submission of representation/
objection to Question Paper and Answer Key before
publication of result. But so far as question
no.2786694 is concerned, while considering the
objections to this question raised by other candidates,
Merit Trac Services Private Limited, Bangalore had
defended the declared answer of question no.2786694
with justification. Further, regarding the allegation of
question No.2786705, the agency has rejected the
claim of the petitioner and they have confirmed the
question to be within the syllabus.
8. It appears that if the petitioner had grievance of the
questions being out of syllabus, such a discrepancy
could have been addressed in the stipulated time
frame i.e., 06.10.2021-08.10.2021 (3 days). Moreover,
the opposite party in the counter-affidavit has
categorically stated that they disposed off 577
representations in respect of 76 questions, out of
which two questions i.e., Q. 126 & 149 were nullified
for having wrong answers and grace marks were
provided to all candidates in that respect. It can be
ascertained from the petitioner's rejoinder affidavit
that she had not submitted her representation/
objection against the alleged two questions i.e.
question Nos.2786694 and 2786705. 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
// 4 //
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 alteram partem rule to the twilight
zone of mere expectations, however great they might
be".
9. The prayer of the petitioner to re-evaluate the answer
script is also unsustainable as the candidates selected
for the concerned examination have been engaged
since 15.12.2021. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the
case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupesh Kurmarsheth2 had opined that:
"It is in the public interest that the
results of public examinations when
published should have some finality
attached to them. If inspection,
verification in the presence of the
candidates and revaluation are to be
allowed as of right it may lead to gross
and indefinite uncertainty, particularly
in regard to the relative ranking etc. of
the candidates, besides leading to utter
confusion on account of the enormity of
the labour and time involved in the
process. 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
1974 AIR 87
1984 AIR 1543.
// 5 //
controlling them. It would 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 were to be propounded,
in the above premises, it is to be
considered how far the Board has
assured a zero defect system of
evaluation, or a system which is almost
fool-proof."
10. Further, In the case of Bismaya Mohanty And Ors.
vs Board Of Secondary Education3, the court
observed that it is not in dispute that the Regulations
of the Board do not permit review, and as such no
review of the answer-script can be done. It cannot be
denied that an examiner has a right to fair-play and
get appropriate marks according to his performance.
What constitutes fair-play depends upon the facts and
circumstances relating to each particular given
situation. If it is found that every possible precaution
has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided
to ensure that the answer scripts inclusive of
supplements are kept in safe custody so as to
eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and
that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying
uniform standards with checks and cross-checks at
different stages, and that measures for detection of
1996 I OLR 134.
// 6 //
malpractice has also been effectively adopted in such
cases it would not be proper for the Court to interfere.
11. Since the present set of facts suggest that the
examination was a computer-based test, it eliminates
any possibility for human intervention in both
examination and evaluation phase. Due to lack of
evidence suggesting possible malpractice, it is
imperative that the due process involved in evaluation
of answer scripts be followed without hinderance from
courts. In the case of H.P Public Service Commission
v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr4, the Supreme Court held
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. Having considered the matter in the aforesaid
perspective and guided by the precedents cited
hereinabove, this Court allows and uphelds the
(2010) 6 SCC 759.
// 7 //
defence of the Opposite Party No.2 and rejects the
prayer of the petitioner.
13. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of being
dismissed.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K.Panigrahi )
Judge
BJ
