Orissa High Court
Chandrakanti Kandi vs State Of Odisha & Others on 21 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ODISHA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 21213 of 2017
Chandrakanti Kandi ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Routray, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
DATE OF HEARING AND JUDGMENT : 21.02.2023
S.K. MISHRA,J.
1. The Petitioner, who had applied for the post of Homeopathic
Medical Officer pursuant to advertisement No.23 of 2015-16, her
name not being shown in the selection list, has preferred the Writ
Petition to quash the notice no.5216 dated 10.08.2017 with further
prayer to declare the Petitioner to be qualified for recruitment in the
post of Homeopathic Medical Officer.
2. The sole grievance of the Petitioner is that though she
answered question Nos.10, 97 and 100 correctly, but such answers
have been shown to be incorrect in the answer key and her final
marks have been reduced. To demonstrate the said alleged error
committed by the OPSC, it has been detailed in the Writ Petition that
as against question No.10, though the Petitioner has answered
No.(C) to be correct answer but the answer sheet available in the
website of OPSC shows answer (B) to be correct. Similarly, as
against question No.97 though the Petitioner has answered No.(C) to
be correct answer, but the answer sheet made available in the website
of the OPSC shows answer (B) to be correct. So far as question
No.100, though the Petitioner has answered No.(B) to be correct
answer but the answer sheet available in the website of OPSC shows
answer (A) to be correct.
3. It is further case of the Petitioner that one candidate named
Jyotirmayee Mallick, having Roll No.101374, has been declared
successful, who has secured 80.414 marks out of 200 marks (which
includes paper-I and II) where as the Petitioner, having Roll No.
101178, has secured 79.414 marks out of 200 marks (which includes
paper-I and II). According to the Petitioner if the three questions,
which she has answered correctly, will be taken into account, then the
marks of the Petitioner will be 82.414 and that will be higher than the
mark secured by Jyotirmayee Mallick.
4. Being noticed, the contesting Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have
filed their Counter Affidavit wherein a specific stand has been taken
that before the evaluation of the OMR answer sheets in paper-I &
paper-II of the aforesaid examination, the opinions of the eminent
experts, who had expertise in the subject, were taken regarding
correctness of the questions and answer keys etc. along with five
objections received from some outsiders as the academic matters are
best left to academicians and on the basis of views of expert
committee, the evaluation of OMR answer sheets has been made
through Computer and result was declared as per orders of the
Commission. Hence, the allegation made by the Petitioner regarding
wrong answer key prepared by the OPSC is incorrect.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that OPSC and its
eminent experts may have adequate expertise in specified subjects but
to err is human nature and there has been a clear discrepancy in
marking of OMR which has shown correct answer to be incorrect and
vice versa.
6. Accordingly, he prays for a direction that Petitioner's answer
sheet may be re-evaluated by an expert committee to ensure justice.
To substantiate his submission made, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner relies on the judgment of apex Court in case of Bihar
Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Arun Kumar & Ors. dated
06.05.2020.
7. Learned Counsel for the OPSC, relying on the judgment of the
apex Court in case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman,
Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. reported in (2004) 6
SCC 714 submits that there is no provision entitling a candidate to
have his answer book re-evaluated, that to contrary to the answer key
prepared on the basis of views of the expert committee. He further
submits that in view of the settled position of law as held in case of
Pramod Kumar Srivastava (Supra), the Writ Petition deserves to be
dismissed. He relies on paragraphs 7 & 8 of the said judgment which
are extracted below:
"7. We have heard the appellant (writ-
petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the
respondents at considerable length. The main
question which arises for consideration is
whether the learned Single Judge was justified
in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of
the appellant in General Science paper. Under
the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no
provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to
ask for re-evolution of his answer-book. There is
a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer
books are seen for the purpose of checking
whether all the answers given by a candidate
have been examined and whether there has been
any mistake in the totaling of marks of each
question and noting them correctly on the first
cover page of the answer-book. There is no
dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found
in the marks awarded to the appellant in the
General Science paper. In the absence of any
provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in
the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has got any right whatsoever to
claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
This question was examined in
considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and
ors., MANU/SC/0055/1984 : [1985]1SCR29. In
this case, the relevant rules provided for
verification (scrutiny of marks) on an
application made to that effect by a candidate.
Some of the students filed writ petitions praying
that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-
books and the Board be directed to conduct re-
evaluation of such the answer-books as the
petitioners may demand after inspection. The
High Court held that the rule providing for
verification of marks gave an implied power to
the examinees to demand a disclosure and
inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the
answer-books. The judgment of the High
Court was set aside and it was held that in
absence of a specified provision conferring a
right upon an examinee to have his answer-
books re-evaluated, no such direction can be
issued. There is no dispute that under the
relevant rule of the Commission there is no
provision entitling a candidate to have his
answers books re-evaluated. In such a situation,
the prayer made by the appellant in the writ
petition was wholly untenable and the learned
Single Judge had clearly erred in having the
answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the
learned Single Judge will give rise to practical
problems. Many candidates may like to take a
chance and pray for re-evaluation of their
answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass
orders on different dates as and when writ
petitions are filed. The Commission will have to
then send the copies of individual candidates to
examiner for re-evaluation which is bound to
take time. The examination conducted by the
Commission being a competitive examination,
the declaration of final result will thus be unduly
delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled
for a long time. What will happen if a candidate
secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may
come forward with a plea that the marks as
originally awarded to him may be taken into
consideration. The absence of clear rules on the
subject may throw many problems and in the
larger interest, they must be avoided."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. The present lis is pertaining to selection and appointment for
the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer for which examination was
held on 29.01.2017. Vide impugned notification dated 10.08.2017,
the OPSC recommended the name of 169 successful candidates to be
appointed in the said post Admittedly there is no interim order passed
in favour of the Petitioner and the impugned notification has been
worked out in the meantime.
9. That apart, in view of the settled position of law as detailed
above, so also the prayer made in the Writ Petition, the same deserves
rejection.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
...................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Odisha High Court, Cuttack
The 21st February, 2023/Banita
