Orissa High Court
Itishree Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 17 December, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15428 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Itishree Sahoo .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prasanta Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr.Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Adv.
along with
Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv.
(for OPSC)
Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Along with Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv.
(for intervener)
Mr.Anshuman Sethy, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-08.11.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.12.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, an applicant for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group-B service), challenges the Odisha Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 Public Service Commission's issuance and adoption of a second answer key for the selection process, without allowing objections and containing certain incorrect answers marked as correct, thereby unjustly excluding the petitioner from the select list for appointment.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) In response to Advertisement No. 03/2023-24 dated 09.05.2023, issued
by the Odisha Public Service Commission ("OPSC") to fill 116 Ayurvedic Medical Officer vacancies, the petitioner submitted her application on 29.05.2023 and was found eligible. She appeared for the written test held on 03.12.2023 at Utkal University.
(ii) The selection process consisted of two objective-type papers, each carrying 100 marks, with no negative marking. The qualifying marks were 50% for UR/SEBC, 45% for P.H., and 40% for SC/ST candidates.
(iii) A provisional answer key was published on 07.12.2023, inviting objections. The petitioner raised timely objections regarding discrepancies in six questions from Paper-I and two from Paper-II of her Set-C test booklet.
(iv) Based on the provisional answer key, the petitioner was provisionally shortlisted and attended document verification on 07.05.2024.
(v) Despite the petitioner's objections and after the document verification stage, the OPSC uploaded a second answer key along with the cut-off marks set at 154.505 for the SEBC(W) category, without soliciting further feedback. Consequently, the petitioner, who scored 154.381 Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 according to the second answer key, was excluded from the selection list.
(vi) Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner seeks intervention of this Court to address the unfair adoption of the second answer key and to ensure a fair selection process.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner submitted that the OPSC initially uploaded an answer key, which was later replaced by a final answer key along with cut-off marks, forming the basis of the selection process. However, the second answer key contained certain incorrect answers. For the SEBC(W) category, the cut-off was set at 154.505, and candidates securing this mark were selected, but the petitioner, scoring 154.381 as per the revised answer key, was excluded.
(ii) While the OPSC accepted the petitioner's objections regarding several questions in Paper-I, it unjustly rejected her objection to Q. No. 18 of Paper-I (corresponding to Q. No. 53 of Set-A), despite clear evidence from authoritative texts.
(iii) For Q. No. 18, both options "B" and "D" had been correct as per the prescribed syllabus and standard Ayurvedic texts, including Charaka Samhita - Sutra Sthana (Chapter 27, Sloka 26), Sushruta Samhita - Sutra Sthana (Chapter 46, Sloka 37), and Ashtanga Hridaya - Sutra Sthana (Chapter 6, Sloka 19). Candidates selecting either option should have Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 been awarded marks, but the OPSC had failed to do so, resulting in an unfair evaluation for the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner was awarded 75 marks instead of 77 in Paper-I, and 79.381 marks instead of 81.381 in Paper-II, leading to a total score of 154.381. She secured 158.381 marks due to the incorrect substitution of answers in the second answer key.
(v) For Question No. 40 of Set-C in Paper-I (corresponding to Q. No. 75 of Set-A), the first Answer Key had listed the correct answer as Option C (Both A & B), consistent with established Ayurvedic texts such as CharakaSamhita (Chapter 5, MatrasitiyaAdhyaya, Sloka 71), which stated that teeth should be brushed twice daily, and AshtangaHridaya (Chapter 2, DinacharyaAdhyaya, Sloka 12), which prescribed brushing early in the morning and after meals without harming the gums. However, in the second Answer Key, the correct answer C had been arbitrarily substituted with Option B, and despite answering correctly, the petitioner had been denied a mark for this question.
(vi) Similarly, for Question No. 32 of Set-C in Paper-II (corresponding to Q. No. 8 of Set-A), the first Answer Key had accurately identified the correct answer as Option A (Man kamithyayog), supported by CharakaSamhita (Chapter VIII, Slokas 7 and 16). Yet, in the second Answer Key, the correct answer had been changed to Option C, resulting in the petitioner being wrongly awarded zero marks.
(vii) Similarly, in Question No. 53 of Set-C in Paper-II (corresponding to Q. No. 29 of Set-A), the first Answer Key had correctly provided Option C (Din-rat jaagna) as the answer, as described in CharakaSamhita Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 (Chapter XXI, Slokas 39-43). The term "Praajagaram" translated to "vigil" or "ujagar" in Odia. Despite this, the second Answer Key had substituted Option "D" as the answer, again depriving the petitioner of a mark.
(viii) To verify the accuracy of her answers to the four contested questions, the petitioner consulted departmental heads from various Ayurvedic Medical Colleges across different states, who provided identical answers for these questions. In light of the relied-upon texts and the institutional authorities' answers, it can be concluded that her answers were correct and that the OPSC's answer key for these questions was demonstratively erroneous.
(ix) Despite opting for correct answers in four specific questions, the petitioner was wrongly awarded zero marks due to changes in the answer key. These actions resulted in the petitioner being deprived of four marks. Had these marks been awarded, the petitioner would have secured a total of 158.381 marks, surpassing the SEBC(W) category cut- off of 154.505, ensuring her selection for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer.
(x) The petitioner contended that the actions of the OPSC in publishing the second answer key without permitting objections were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of fairness and transparency, leading to her unjust exclusion from the selection process.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02
(i) Eminent persons serving as Professors and Associate Professors from various universities and institutions across India were appointed as Question Setters, Paper Setters, and Answer Key Setters for the recruitment process to the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer, pursuant to Advertisement No. 03 of 2023-24.
(ii) After the written examination was conducted, following established practice and procedure, the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) published the Answer Keys for Paper-I and Paper-II of Ayurvedic Medical Officer through Notice No. 5394/C-I/PSC, dated 07.12.2023.
Candidates were invited to submit objections or suggestions regarding the Answer Keys and erroneous questions within a stipulated period of seven days.
(iii) Subsequently, the Question Papers, Answer Keys supplied by the Question Setters, and the objections or suggestions received from candidates, including the petitioner, were referred to Subject Experts. The Experts were tasked with providing their views and opinions on the correctness of the Questions and Answer Keys vis-à-vis the objections raised.
(iv) Based on the opinions and views of the Subject Experts, the Commission finalized the Answer Keys. The evaluation of the answer sheets was conducted accordingly, and the results of the written examination were published.
(v) The petitioner, secured 154.381 marks in the written examination and was shortlisted for document verification. After the verification process was completed, the Commission prepared a select list of candidates in Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 order of merit based on the written examination results. However, the last candidate selected under the SEBC (W) category had secured 154.505 marks. Due to her lower position in the merit list, the petitioner could not be selected for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer pursuant to Advertisement No. 03 of 2023-24.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. Before delving into the specific facts at hand, this Court finds it apposite to outline the guiding principles governing the evaluation of answer keys in public examinations, as evolved through judicial interpretation.
7. It is a well-established principle of law that the power of a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited in matters concerning examinations, the correctness of answers, and the determination of results. By its very nature, this Court lacks the expertise necessary to assess the accuracy of answers in specialized recruitment examinations.
8. Courts generally refrain from examining the merits of answers suggested in the official answer key, especially when endorsed by subject matter experts, as the writ court is not positioned to perform the role of an academic adjudicator. Judicial intervention in such matters is, therefore, appropriately restricted to prevent a situation where every disaffected student seeks judicial redress, flooding the courts with petitions for re-evaluation of examination scripts.
9. Nonetheless, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be entirely excluded in cases where the answer key or evaluation process is demonstrably Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 erroneous. If the answer is manifestly incorrect and no academic reasoning can support it, the Court may intervene to prevent undue harm to students due to an erroneous evaluation. However, the onus remains on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the answer key is incorrect but also to show that the mistake is glaring and evident, requiring no inferential reasoning.
10. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta1 expressed the standard for judicial intervention in such cases, observing as following:
"16. ...We agree that the keyanswer 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..."
11. Similarly, in West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Ors.
vs. Abdul Halim,2 the Supreme Court outlined the test for determining whether a decision is vitiated by an apparent error of law, observing as hereinunder:
"30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by 1 (1983) 4 SCC 309 2 (2019) 18 SCC 39 Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna. If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari.
31. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse."
12. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.,3 the Supreme Court succinctly encapsulated the position of law regarding judicial review in examination matters. The court outlined the following principles:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions.They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;3
(2018) 2 SCC 357 Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
13. Having examined the guiding principles in this regard, this Court now turns to the specific facts of the present case.
14. The petitioner has contested four questions, asserting that incorrect answers were stated as correct in the second answer key issued by the OPSC. For this purpose, the petitioner has relied on authoritative texts and expert opinions to substantiate her claim. Had her answers been accepted and the marks for the contested questions awarded accordingly, she would have secured a total of 158.381 marks, exceeding the cut-off of 154.505 for the SEBC (W) category. Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02
15. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta,4 Combined Pre-medical Test was taken by the University for admission to medical course. Objective type questions were set up and four options were indicated, three being wrong. It was held by this Court that the Court will presume key answers to be correct and proceed to examine accordingly. But if any of the key answers is proved to be 'demonstrably wrong' or is such that 'no reasonable body well-versed in the subject would regard as correct', it would be unfair to penalize students for not giving an answer that accords the key answer. In such a situation, a Court of law can issue an appropriate direction. Speaking for the Court, Chandrachud, C.J. elucidated as following:
"If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problem are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for, various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter-forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in overcoming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective- type test', care must be 4 (1983) 4 SCC 309 Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02 taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer, It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it".
16. At the outset, this Court finds itself without the specialized expertise necessary to adjudicate the accuracy of answers in specialized recruitment examinations and, therefore, refrains from assuming the role of an appellate body or an academic adjudicator.
17. However, based on a preliminary review of the facts and submissions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has presented a prima facie case warranting judicial intervention, as the answer key appears demonstrably erroneous when the relevant authoritative texts and expert opinions are considered.
V. CONCLUSION:
18. In light of the foregoing, while this Court is not positioned to directly assess the veracity of the answers, it deems it necessary to direct the OPSC to re-evaluate the answers to the contested questions. This re- evaluation should be conducted by a panel of qualified subject matter experts, who can offer an objective and specialized review of the disputed questions.
Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:14:02
19. The findings of the expert panel shall be carefully considered. Based on the panel's conclusions, the petitioner's case shall be reconsidered, and her position in the merit list be adjusted if the expert panel finds the petitioner's arguments and supporting materials to be valid. The Court's intervention remains confined to ensuring that the petitioner's claim undergoes a thorough and appropriate review process by the panel of experts. It is also made clear that the panel should not be influenced by the question and answer setters of the OPSC while dealing with the disputed questions. The Petitioner's answer should also be duly scrutinised in the light of the answers provided in standard text books followed. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th Dec., 2024.0 Page 13 of 13