Orissa High Court
Sasmita Pattnaik & Another vs State Of Odisha & Others on 14 October, 2020
Author: S. K. Panigrahi
Bench: S. K. Panigrahi
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
WRIT APPEAL NO.22 of 2020
WRIT APPEAL NO.41 OF 2020
WRIT APPEAL NO.641 OF 2019
WRIT APPEAL NO.642 OF 2019
WRIT APPEAL NO.643 OF 2019
(Appeals against the judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P(C) No.11094 of 2019)
In W.A No.22 of 2020
Sasmita Pattnaik & Another ...... Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & Others ...... Respondents
For Appellants : M/s. Gautam Misra (Sr. Advocate)
Dinesh Kuamr Patra
A.Dash, J.R. Deo & A.K.Dash
For Respondents : Addl. Government Advocate
(For Respondent No.1)
M/s. Sameer Ku.Das,
P. K. Behera & N. Jena
(For Respondent Nos.2 & 3)
M/s. M.R.Muduli, N.Sarkar,
S. Priyadarshini, S.S. Dash,
A. Mohanty & K. Swain
(For Respondent Nos.4 to 23)
In W.A No.41 of 2020
Prasanta Kumar Swain & Others ...... Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & Others ...... Respondents
For Appellants : M/s. Samir Kumar Misra,
J. Pradhan, S. Rout,
Miss P.S. Mohanty &
Miss S.L. Pattnaik
2
For Respondents : Addl. Government Advocate
(For Respondent No.1)
M/s. Sameer Ku. Das,
P. K. Behera & N. Jena
(For Respondent Nos.2 & 3)
In W.A No.641 of 2019
Arabinda Bose ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Others ...... Respondents
For Appellant : M/s. Budhadev Routray (Sr.
Advocate), Saswat Das & A.
Mohanty
For Respondents : Addl. Government Advocate
(For Respondent No.1)
M/s. Sameer Ku. Das,
P. K. Behera & N. Jena
(For Respondent Nos.2 & 3)
M/s. M.R. Muduli, N. Sarkar,
S. Priyadarshini, S.S. Dash,
& A. Mohanty
(For Respondent Nos.4 to 8, 10,
11, 13 to 18, 21, 22 and 23)
M/s. K.P. Mishra, L.P. Dwivedy,
S Rath, A. Mishra and
K. Hussain
(For Intervenors)
In W.A No.642 of 2019
Srinibash Mohanty ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Others ...... Respondents
3
For Appellant : Mr. Sourya Sundar Das
(Senior Advocate)
M/s. Saswat Das & A. Mohanty
For Respondents : Additional Government Advocate
(For Respondent No.1)
M/s. Sameer Ku. Das,
P. K. Behera & N. Jena
(For Respondent Nos.2 & 3)
M/s. M.R. Muduli, N. Sarkar,
S. Priyadarshini, S.S. Dash &
A. Mohanty
(For Respondent Nos.4 to 8, 10,
11, 13 to 18, 21, 22 & 23)
In W.A No.643 of 2019
Rajata Kanta Dash ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Others ...... Respondents
For Appellant : M/s. Saswat Das & A Mohanty
For Respondents : Addl. Government Advocate
(For Respondent No.1)
M/s. Sameer Ku.Das,
P. K. Behera & N. Jena
(For Respondent Nos.2 & 3)
M/s. M.R. Muduli, N.Sarkar,
S. Priyadarshini, S.S. Dash &
A. Mohanty
(For Respondent Nos.4 to 8,10,
11, 13 to 18, 21, 22 & 23)
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 28.09.2020 Date of Judgment: 14.10.2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE S. PANDA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
S. K. Panigrahi, J.
"If I had an hour to solve a problem, and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask... for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes."
- Albert Einstein
1. The contextual underpinning of the quote heavily influences the subject matter of the instant case. The present batch of Writ Appeals assails the judgement dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Single Bench in W.P.(C) No.11094 of 2019 and pray for proceeding with the selection by publishing the final merit list for the post of lecturer in the stream of History in terms of advertisement issued by the State Selection Board, Department of Higher Education, Government of Odisha vide Advertisement No.003 of 2018.
2. The present batch of cases exemplifies an inherent flaw in the recruitment process which is devoted to finding the right candidates for the posts of Lecturer in different streams. A successful recruitment process attracts a deep 5 well of talent for selection. The unenviable task of the selectors includes everything from a processing of applications, written test and conduct of an efficient and engaging interview process to the ultimate job offer. At the same time, the defects, if any, in the recruitment process could render a jobseeker frustrated. The factual conspectus herein revolves around the written examination conducted by State Selection Board, wherein the respondents have alleged that some defective questions found their way onto the question papers, which consisted a myriad categories of errors like spelling mistakes, printing errors, wrong questions and so on.
3. As stated above, the State Selection Board had issued an advertisement bearing No.003/2018 which was published in the website of State Selection Board (www.ssbodisha.nic.in) inviting application from eligible candidates in order to fill up 833 vacancies in 25 disciplines. Present controversy is with respect to subject History, wherein out of that 81 posts, 27 were reserved for women, 18 for S.T. including 6 for women, 13 for S.C. including 4 for women, 9 for SEBC including 3 for women and 41 for U.R. including 14 for women. The said 6 advertisement provided that the selection shall be made on the basis of three aspects i.e., career 25 marks (Ph. D- 25 and M. Phil &/or NET -10), Written-165 marks (Objective Type), Viva voce- 10 marks and in total 200 marks.
4. The quandary in the present matter has arisen out of the framing of question paper and corresponding answer key in the written examination. It was provided in the website that Written Examination in the concerned subject shall be conducted as per the syllabus prescribed in the website (which may be considered as a model syllabus at par with the curriculum recommended by different Universities and leading colleges of the State) carrying 165 marks and questions for this 165 marks shall be of objective type (Multiple Choice), which are to be answered in OMR sheet and the examination will be of three hours duration. In compliance with conditions stipulated in the advertisement, the respondents and other candidates applied for the advertised posts. After due scrutiny, admit cards were issued to the respondents. Pursuant to the notice issued on 08.02.2019, they appeared for the written examination on 10.03.2019, conducted by State Selection Board. Objective type Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) were provided to the 7 respondents which were to be answered in OMR sheet. However, some of the questions in different subjects including History found to be erroneous, faulty and defective.
5. Even inadvertent errors in framing of questions, one cannot deny, does cloud the very integrity of recruitment process. Such aspects induce a high anxiety in the candidates and result in erosion of self-efficacy and confidence among them. The anomalies aforestated caused serious grievances among the candidates. For the purpose of examining the serious objections in the form of multiple petitions received from different candidates, especially in the subject of History, the Selection Board decided to setup a Review Committee, consisting of four subject experts. The experts in History had the mandate to scrutinize the questions as well as answer key. After detailed scrutiny, the Review Committee opined that:
a) Three nos. of questions are out of syllabus- Question No. 56, 68 and 71.
b) Wrong Questions-
Three questions are irrelevant - Qns. No.- 13, 122, & 125 Five questions for which no correct/ appropriate answers given- Question No. - 2, 27, 77, 126 & 129.
8 For thirty questions the answers are modified. Q Nos.1, 5,6,20,21,24,39,40,48,52,53,61,66,68,69,74,79,81,84, 85,92,95,96,104,106,108,123,132,133,141.
6. The Review Committee further suggested that credit shall be given to the candidates by applying P/Q method for the above-mentioned 11 questions. Furthermore, the modified and corrected answer keys for all the questions in subject History was also issued by the Committee. In view of the report of the Review Committee, the State Selection Board (SSB) decided that full credit shall be given in the case of the abovementioned 11 questions in subject History, in favour of all the candidates who appeared in the written examination. Accordingly, instructions were issued to the processor for valuation. The modified and corrected answer keys furnished by the Review Committee in respect of subject History was accepted by the SSB for necessary follow up action. Consequently, steps were taken for re- evaluation based on the modification as stated above. The SSB contended that in view of these steps; this Court should refrain from interfering with the examinations.
7. Many of the candidates whose grievances remained unaddressed invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court 9 including one Writ Petition filed in relation to the History subject alleging the questions designed for the said Recruitment test were dotted with mistakes either in the form of wrongful framing of questions or defective construction of answer key. As many as 31 questions had mistakes, out of which as many as 6 questions were wrong (Q. Nos.2, 39, 81, 116, 129 and 154) and similarly in 25 questions (Q. Nos.1, 5, 6, 18, 20, 24, 40, 52, 61, 66, 68, 69, 71, 74, 79, 84, 96, 104, 108, 126, 132, 133, 139 and 153) there was error in construction of the answer key and furthermore no answer was provided for the same. After appearing for the examination, the respondents filed their representation enumerating their grievances stemming from a spate of wrong questions impacting their future career but their fragile emotion and apprehension went unheard by SSB. Consequently, Writ Jurisdiction of this Court was invoked with the contention that a large number of questions were demonstrably and palpably wrong, ambiguous, out of course, or options were not provided in proper manner. Further, considering the aspect of negative marking, the result of examination, it was submitted, should be cancelled and the respondents should be allowed 10 to sit in the fresh examination to be conducted for determination of their merits and eligibility.
8. Having heard the parties, Ld. Single Judge in his order dated 03.12.2019 returned a finding that the allegations levelled by the respondents were more or less found to be correct. It was observed that the SSB had not acted in consonance with the recommendation made by the expert committee. He further held that even though in respect of 11 questions, the SSB has decided to give full credit to all the candidates, that itself will not suffice to cover up all other defects pointed out by the expert committee, more particularly, when answer key, as notified, was not correct in respect of 30 questions.
9. The Ld. Single Judge placed reliance on J. Antony Clara vs. The State of Tamilnadu1 and Gourav Jain and Ors. Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission and others2 to hold that re-examination should be conducted in the subject History even though it would cause hardship to the Board as the SSB has neither acted on the basis of the suggestions given by the Review Committee nor the 1 W.P.(MD) No.13267 of 2013 and batch decided on 1st Oct, 2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 2 (2009), 156 PLR 161.
11
principle laid down in Pankaj Sharma v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others3. It was held that when the candidates are facing negative marks with various counts and large chunk of questions are defective, it would be equitable if the fresh written examination would be conducted in subject History only. The Ld. Judge was of the considered view that as opposed to awarding marks in all 23 questions to all the candidates, ignoring the objections made in various counts by the petitioners and admitting that there are certain errors in questions, as has been dealt with in this manner, if fresh written examination is conducted for recruitment of Lecturer in History, it would be in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play.
10. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Ld. Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment ought to have appreciated that despite award of full marks to Respondent Nos.-04 to 23, in respect of the ambiguous/wrong/defective questions, they could not qualify in the written examination which therefore means that their performance in the questions other than ambiguous/wrong/defective questions was not good and they could not secure mark in 3 (2008) 4 SCC 273.
12
comparison to the candidates who have performed well. Further, it was submitted that Ld. Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the fact that the merit of the successful candidates has been compromised by setting aside the entire examination. He further contended that the respondents have only questioned the validity and propriety of the questions set in the examination only on the basis of "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization" and had failed to demonstrate the same with sufficient degree of clarity. He further submits that the Ld. Single Judge, while passing the impugned order has adopted an erroneous legal approach in setting aside the entire examination in the subject of History and further directing the SSB to conduct a fresh examination. It is contended that the judgment is in the teeth of the ratio decided in case of Richal Vs. R.P.S.C.4. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has only directed to revise the result of all the candidates except the candidates whose names have been included in the select list and to further publish last selected candidates in the respective categories who were included in the select list. In view thereof, the 4 (2018) 8 SCC 81 13 impugned judgment, it is contended, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.
11. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 through their Counter Affidavit submits that the Opposite Parties maintained high degree of probity and fairness by revising the Answer Keys. Such a conscious decision was taken by the SSB to protect the interests of all the candidates, for the subject of History, including that of the Writ Petitioners. The SSB, it is stated, adopted the Principle of Uniformity in awarding full marks to all the candidates who appeared in the Written Examination including the appellants. Therefore, the allegation that P/Q process for awarding marks against these 11 questions to all the candidates in the subject History, including the writ petitioners, irrespective of their performance in rest of the question of the Test Booklet is not fallacious. He has further submitted that the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 will face immense hardship in conducting the examination afresh for the same candidates. More importantly, conducting re-examination, it is stated that, will not give any benefit to any candidates and defies a justifiable reasoning. Further that, besides these wrong questions and answer keys, the merit of those candidates 14 can be judged as per the modality fixed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in the matter of awarding modified marks to them. It is vehemently contended that no prejudice will be caused to any candidates who have participated in the process of selection. Furthermore, undertaking the whole exercise again will lead to huge financial loss to the State exchequer. In these circumstances, it is submitted, this Court should allow the Opposite Parties Nos.2 and 3 to declare the result by preparing a fresh merit list of candidates indicating the marks secured by them after requisite modification based on the same examination.
12. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 23 through the counter affidavit submits that there is no error or mistake in the impugned judgment and the Ld. Single Judge has not committed any error in directing fresh written examination. The advertisement for recruitment of lecturers was published in respect of several disciplines. In Oriya discipline this Court found that some questions were incorrect and ambiguous. Thereafter, examining the report of Expert Committee, this Court was pleased to set-aside the entire written examination. The Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have also conducted the fresh examination and the results 15 are awaited. He further submits that in the higher-level recruitment process such type of gross wrong question should not be entertained, which may shake the faith of aspiring candidates in the recruitment process. The Hon'ble Court should not rely on the Apex Court decision of Richal Vs. R.P.S.C. (supra) as in that particular case the expert committee report had taken care of all the allegations and grievances and the grievances of the appellants had been substantially redressed. However, in the present case, proper steps have not been taken in respect of the 30 questions where the answers provided in the answer key were wrong and ambiguous.
13. In the absence of any statutory provisions, this Court cannot direct the Board to conduct re-examination and, therefore, the result of public examination attains finality. This ratio has been substantiated by several judgements of the Apex Court including West Bengal Council of Higher Education v. Ayan Das & Ors.5 In the case of UGC v. Neha Anil Bobde6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"29. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory 5 (2007) 8 SCC 242 6 (2013) 10 SCC 519.16
provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao7, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University8 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University9, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has 7 AIR 1965 SC 491.
8(2001) 8 SCC 546 9 (2008) 9 SCC 284.
17
only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The issue is found in disguise in the impugned judgment but the Ld. Single Judge has taken a contrary view by directing the Board to conduct re-examination in the absence of any statutory provision for the same.
14. In President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, among others, held that:
"5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth11, 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 re-evaluation 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 10 (2007) 1 SCC 603 11 (1984) 4 SCC 27 18 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 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 pragmatic one was 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 foolproof."(emphasis supplied).
It has consistently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in academic matters, Courts have to be highly circumspect in substituting the well-considered views of a Committee of Experts, against whom no bias or mala fides are alleged with its own views. The courts should be extremely reluctant in deciding what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters when the Review Committee set up by SSB compromising of academics 19 possessing technical expertise and rich experience has formulated the best possible solution. This ratio has also been substantiated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelima Mishra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal.12. In the case of Basavaiah v. H.L Ramesh13(supra), the Supreme Court, among others, held that:
"26. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinized the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert Committee had in fact scrutinized the merits and de- merits of each candidate including qualification and the equivalent published work and its recommendations were sent to the University for appointment which were accepted by the University.
27. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant 12 (1990) 2 SCC 746.13
(2010) 8 SCC 372.20
case, experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture.
32. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be found in the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the experts committee. This Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts. The Court observed as under:
7. ...When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to 21 experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can"
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and Ors.14, the court observed thus:
"29. ...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...."
15. In the matter at hand, a Review Committee was set up by the SSB consisting of four subject experts in History to scrutinize the questions as well as answer key. After detailed and minute scrutiny, the Review Committee opined that:
i) Three nos. of questions are out of syllabus- Question No. 56, 68 and 71.
ii) Wrong Questions-
Three questions are irrelevant - Question Nos.- 13, 122, & 125.14
(1984) 4 SCC 27.22
Five questions for which no correct/appropriate answers given- Question Nos. -2, 27, 77, 126 and 129. For thirty questions the answers are modified-Q Nos.1, 5,6,20,21,24,39,40,48,52,53,61,66,68,69,74,79,81,84, 85,92,95,96,104,106,108,123,132,133,141. The Review Committee further suggested that credit shall be given to the candidates by applying P/Q method for the above-mentioned 11 questions. Furthermore, the modified & corrected answer keys for all the questions in subject History was also issued by the Committee. In view of the said report of the Review Committee, the SSB decided that full credit shall be given in case of 11 questions in subject History for all the candidates who appeared in the written examination. The modified and corrected answer keys furnished by the Review Committee in respect of subject History was accepted by the SSB for necessary follow up action, consequentially evaluation was undertaken. The SSB fervently contended that in view of all these steps undertaken; the examination so conducted should not be cancelled. The records reveal that Review Committee had properly scrutinized the question paper and answer key 23 and opined the necessary requirements. Therefore, a direction to the SSB to strictly follow the guidelines provided by the Review Committee, instead of a direction to conduct a re-examination, may be more prudent and appropriate in the present case.
16. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that impugned judgment should have placed reliance on Richal Vs. R.P.S.C. (supra), while deciding on the case, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para 18 has categorically held that the answer key 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 incorrect key answers. The publication of answer key is a step to achieve transparency in the selection process and to give an opportunity to the candidates to assess the correctness of their answer. An opportunity to file objections against the answer key uploaded by the examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are to be examined by the 24 experts and thereafter corrective measures if any should be taken by the examining body.
17. In the present case, in order to maintain transparency, the SSB published the key answers inviting objections from all the candidates and after receiving the objections with respect to the alleged ambiguous and defective questions and answer key, the same were put to the scrutiny of subject expert committee. After examining the report submitted by the subject expert committee, SSB instructed for award of full credit in respect of 11 questions to all the candidates. The revised answer key was then placed in public domain to ensure fairness and transparency in the process of selection.
18. The Court is of the opinion that, in the present facts and circumstances, the re-examination is an unnecessary exercise that will cause major inconvenience to all applicants without much gain. Furthermore, the SSB will face immense hardship in conducting the examination afresh. This is more so in view of the fact that the SSB has demonstrated that even awarding full marks to all the candidates, for the ambiguous/erroneous questions, did not give any additional benefit to the applicants. We are 25 conscious of the fact that the SSB is already burdened with the onerous task of conducting the exams scheduled yearly, especially, in the light of the challenges thrown by the ongoing pandemic. In the present circumstances, we do not intend to overburden the SSB, when it has already taken sufficient steps to alleviate the concerns of the applicants based on the advice by experts in the field. We are of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to any candidates who have participated in the process of selection. We re-iterate, such a view will also save the State Exchequer from incurring huge financial loss in holding another recruitment test for the same candidates; a situation which could be ameliorated with equally rational and effective alternatives as has been exercised in the present case.
19. However, before parting with the present case, we hasten to add that Written Examination is the most widely used tool in evaluation and assessment of the competency of the candidates. The questions have to be prepared with utmost care to avoid any embarrassment while preparing the answer keys. Lack of proper care could lead to causing unwarranted confusion or wrong understanding of the 26 questions. Framing of well-studied guidelines and following scientific methods could facilitate in formulating appropriate questions which are essential to maintain the requisite standard of evaluation and assessment. It is the bounden duty of the recruitment agency to adopt a zero- tolerance approach to pre-empt any doubts or confusion with respect to the question posed to evaluate a candidate. In the present case, much of the confusion has been created by the Question-setters and the Board should not stand on hollow esteem in protecting the erring Question- setters but it must take exemplary action against the erring Question-setters to preserve the sanctity of the recruitment process. The Board is duty bound to send a strong message to the Question setters by imposing an exemplary punitive action demonstrating that such callous approach is absolutely intolerable.
20. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11094 of 2019 and allow the present Writ Appeals.
However, the SSB is at liberty to declare the results by preparing a fresh merit list of candidates in accordance 27 with the report of the Expert Committee and recast the merit list on the basis of marks secured by them as per the modified process and procedure.
The Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
.................................
(S. K. Panigrahi, J.)
Sanju Panda, J. I agree.
.............................
(Sanju Panda, J.)
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14th October, 2020/AKK/LNB