Safiya Malik

The Orissa High Court has directed the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000 to a candidate in the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) Main Examination 2022 after finding a procedural lapse in the evaluation process. The court held that while re-evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible, the case involved non-evaluation of a specific answer, which led to an incorrect final score. The court arranged for an independent assessment of the unevaluated answer but found that the additional marks awarded were insufficient to alter the candidate’s eligibility for the next stage of the examination.

The petitioner appeared for the Odisha Judicial Service Main Examination 2022 under PPSAN No. P230166010, corresponding to Roll No. 400344. She failed to qualify for the viva voce stage by a margin of five marks. Despite obtaining high scores in most subjects, she received only 53 marks in the Law of Property paper. The petitioner contended that one of her answers, specifically Question 5(a), was left unmarked, affecting her overall performance. She also argued that other answers were awarded lower marks despite meeting all the required evaluation criteria.

The petitioner approached the Orissa High Court, seeking re-evaluation of her answer script and alleging that the marking process lacked transparency and fairness. Her counsel relied on various precedents, including Prajna Lalit Mishra v. OPSC, Sanjay Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, and Sujasha Mukherji v. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. He argued that arbitrary marking deprived the petitioner of a fair chance to compete in a merit-based selection system and requested the court to intervene.

The Odisha Public Service Commission opposed the petition, stating that re-evaluation of answer scripts in competitive examinations is not permitted under the law. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar PSC, which explicitly bars re-evaluation unless expressly provided in the examination rules. The commission also referred to its own 2017 notification, which prohibits post-examination scrutiny of marks.

The Additional Government Advocate, representing the State of Odisha, supported OPSC’s argument, stating that competitive examinations require strict adherence to established rules and that subjective answers are evaluated at the discretion of examiners. He argued that judicial interference at this stage would disrupt the recruitment process and set an impractical precedent.

The High Court framed two key issues for determination:

1. Whether marks were not awarded for any question in the petitioner’s answer script.

2. If so, whether the petitioner would qualify for the next stage of the examination after the evaluation of the unmarked answer.

Upon examining the petitioner’s answer script, the court found that Question 5(a) in the Law of Property paper was indeed left unevaluated. It observed that this issue was not one of re-evaluation but non-evaluation, which constituted a procedural lapse. The court stated: “The issue here is not of re-evaluation but of non-evaluation. The petitioner has demonstrated, and it is 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.”

Recognizing the gravity of the lapse, the court directed OPSC to send the petitioner’s answer script to three independent institutions—National Law University, Cuttack; M.S. Law University, Cuttack; and Law University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar—for evaluation by their Vice-Chancellors or subject experts.

The individually marked answer scripts were presented before the court in sealed covers. After reviewing them, the court confirmed that the omitted answer had not been evaluated previously. The independent evaluators assigned an average score of 3.5 marks to the answer.

The petitioner argued that had her answer script been properly scrutinized initially, she would have qualified for the next stage of the examination. However, after adding the additional 3.5 marks to her original score of 53 in the Law of Property paper, her revised total became 56.5, which was still insufficient for qualification.

The High Court concluded that while the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-evaluation was valid and had been rectified, the revised score did not alter the outcome of the examination. However, considering the mental distress and financial burden the petitioner endured in pursuing the case, the court directed OPSC to pay her compensation.

The court issued the following directives:

1. OPSC shall pay the petitioner ₹1,00,000 as compensation for the procedural lapse in the evaluation process.

2. The compensation must be paid within 60 days from the date of the judgment.

3. OPSC shall take additional quality control measures to prevent similar errors in future examinations.

The court observed: “Competitive examinations are the cornerstone of countless aspirations. Even a minor oversight can irreparably damage a candidate’s chances, undermine their hard work, and shake trust in the examination system. It is imperative for OPSC to ensure rigorous scrutiny in the evaluation process.”

Case Title: Jyotirmayee Dutta v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 21703 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash

[Read/Download order]