Orissa High Court

Abhishek Mahapatra vs Board Of Secondary Education on 27 October, 2022

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       W.P.(C) No.11614 of 2022

         Abhishek Mahapatra                  ....             Petitioner
                                       Mr. Kousik Ananda Guru, Adv.
                                   -versus-
         Board of Secondary Education,       ....       Opposite Party
         Odisha, Cuttack
                                                   Mr. S.S. Rao, Adv.


                   CORAM:
                   DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order                         ORDER
No.                          27.10.2022
08.
        1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the

action of the Opposite Party in not awarding the

Petitioner with proper marks in the answer script for

OSSTET Examination, 2022 with regard to Question No.

13 in Section-1 i.e., Odia.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of matter

presented before this Court remains that the Petitioner is

Post Graduate Degree holder in Chemistry from

Berhampur University and has also completed his B.Ed

Course from Nagarjuna University, Andhra Pradesh.

After completion of the B.Ed Degree, the petitioner

joined DAV School Organization and is now posted at

// 2 //

GMR Township in the District of Dhenkanal. The

Petitioner appeared for the Odisha Secondary School

Teacher Eligibility Test (OSSTET) on 09.02.2022 at the

Examination Centre i.e. Saraswati Bidyamandir, Nalco

Nagar, Angul and was assigned the role number -

12120107041.

4. In the concerned examination, the candidates were

required to answer 150 number of questions out of 510

questions within 2 hours 30 minutes. The booklet

containing the questions had four sections. Section-1

was Odia and Section-2 was English and both of these

subjects were compulsory for all the streams. The

candidates had to answer 20 number of questions each

in both the sections. Each question carried 1 mark. Since,

Section-3 was optional, a candidate had to choose any

one group out of seven groups. In this section, a

candidate was required to answer 60 number of

questions which carried one mark each. Section-4 was

compulsory for all the streams. In Section-4, a candidate

was required to answer 50 number of questions with

each question carrying one mark. The petitioner

appeared for the optional subject PCM i.e. Physics,

Chemistry & Mathematics and was supplied with Set-A

question booklet.

// 3 //

5. After the completion of the examination on 09.02.2022,

the Opposite Party published the Answer Key and

subsequently, the results were announced on 12.04.2022

whereby, the Petitioner was declared as unsuccessful as

he had obtained 67 marks whereas the qualifying mark

for the examination was 68.

6. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that the correct answer to the Question No. 13 in

Section-1 is Option D as opposed to Option C that has

been provided in the Answer Key released by the

Opposite Party. Furthermore, it is also contended by

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the answer was

found to be correct as per Odia "Purnachandra

Bhasakosha".

7. Per Contra, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the

Opposite Party that the Court cannot be called upon to

assess the correctness of the answers given to the

questions nor can it recall upon to compare and decide

which of the answer is correct and the scope of

jurisdiction cannot be extended to such prayers of the

Petitioners.

8. In compliance of directions issued by this Court on

29.08.2022, immediate steps were taken to form a special

expert committee under the Chairmanship of the Vice

// 4 //

President of the Board of Secondary Education,

Academic Officer of the Board of Secondary Education,

two retired Professors in Odia and Retired Associate

Professor in Odia. The Committee met on 07.09.2022 and

on a thread bear analysis of the question and upon

considering all the materials, it arrived at a conclusion

that the answer suggested by the Board in the Answer

Key was correct.

9. Indisputably, in the case at hand, the answer key

prepared by the Opposite Party is presumed to have

been prepared after due deliberations. Moreover, the

discrepancies assailed in relation to the question at

issue, has been categorically redressed by the Opposite

Party through opinion of the Expert Committee.

10.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 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".

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

// 5 //

11.This Court having gone through the counter affidavit is

of the considered view that adequate steps and

precautions have been taken by the Opposite Party with

respect to the Redressal Mechanism and preparation of

Answer Key and when the expert committee has

already taken the decision, this court will be at loath to

substitute its own view. If the view taken by the

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 It would

be profitable 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

AIR 1984 S.C. 1543

// 6 //

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 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."

12.In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta3, the Supreme

Court observed that:

".... the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct." In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather

1983 AIR 1230

// 7 //

heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer.

13.In a similar situation where the discrepancies in relation

to answer key published and grievances were

considered, the Supreme Court in the case of Richal and

Ors vrs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors4

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 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."

14.The procedure followed by the Supreme Court in the

case of Richal & Ors (supra) have, in fact, been followed

by the Board in this case. After the publication of the

Answer Key, the objections pertaining to various

questions-and-answers were placed before the Expert

Committee and the same was redressed effectively on

the basis of suggestions made by the Committee. It is

(2018) 8 SCC 81

// 8 //

not the case of the Petitioner that his objections were not

evaluated afresh by an Expert Committee. Therefore,

this court is not inclined to interfere with the matters.