Orissa High Court
WP(C)/8470/2017 on 16 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.8470 of 2017
18. 16.03.2021 1. Heard Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the OPSC.
2. The Petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in Odisha Judicial Service Examination, 2016. She has filed the present writ petition praying for re-evaluation of her answer scripts for Compulsory Paper-1 (General English) in respect of Question Nos.3(c), 4 and 5.
3. Pursuant to an Advertisement No.03 of 2016-17 published by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for direct recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges in the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS), the Petitioner applied and having qualified in the preliminary examination, she was allowed to appear in the main written examination held between 23rd October, 2016 and 26th October, 2016. Her Roll No. was 3079. She did not come out successful in the main written examination, which consisted of two compulsory papers and three optional papers. Compulsory Paper-1 was General English carrying a total 150 marks. The Petitioner secured 40 marks in Compulsory Paper- 1 and 356 marks in all. On the application of the Petitioner, OPSC supplied her the authenticated photocopies of her answer scripts in General English. It is submitted by the Petitioner that in respect of Question No.3(c), she got 10 marks and for Question Nos.4 and 5, she got 7 & 10 marks -2- respectively. As per the Petitioner, she has been deprived of getting 20 more marks, i.e., in respect of Question No.3(c), 10 marks and 5 marks each in respect of Question Nos.4 and 5.
4. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner though secured 356 in the aggregate, she failed in Compulsory Paper-1 due to an improper evaluation process adopted by OPSC. It is further contended that in absence of any scheme for evaluation, the Petitioner fell victim of erratic evaluation of answer scripts depriving her from being selected. Mr. Mukherji in support of his contention relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh v. UP-PSC, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720.
5. The OPSC, the contesting Opposite Party, has filed a counter affidavit refuting all the allegations made by the Petitioner. It is stated that as per Rule 24 of the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007, the candidates, who have secured not less than 45 per centum of marks in aggregate and minimum 33 per centum of marks in each paper in the main written examination, will only be called as qualified to appear the viva-voce test. The examiners for evaluation of answer scripts in the main written examination were eminent Readers/Senior Lecturers having more than 10 years of experience in evaluation work so also the Chief Examiner was an eminent Professor and the marks have been awarded in a uniform process of evaluation.
-3-6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the OPSC submits that, the contention regarding erratic evaluation is not at all correct and the allegations made by the Petitioner in this respect are completely baseless. All the examiners evaluated answer scripts on the basis of scheme of valuation prepared by subject experts of the General English paper and as such the allegation of improper awarding of marks is without basis. It is also submitted that re-checking/re- evaluation of answer scripts has been done in terms of Notice No.1009/PSC, dated 27th June, 2017 of the OPSC and law is well settled that evaluation of answer scripts by the Court is impermissible.
7. In the instant case, it is the specific plea of the Petitioner that she has been awarded less marks in respect of Question Nos.3(c), 4 and 5. According to her, 20 more marks ought to have been added to make her total marks 60 in Compulsory Paper-1 (General English).
8. We have the occasion to peruse the copy of the answer scripts of the Petitioner in General English as annexed to the writ petition under Annexure-8, with corresponding question paper at Annexure-7. Having perused the answers given by the Petitioner to Question Nos.3(c), 4 and 5, we are not prima facie satisfied that they declare to be awarded more marks than that by the OPSC.
-4-9. The principles of law governing the issue are no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, (2004) 6 SCC 714 clearly observed that re-evaluation of answer papers by the Court is impermissible. The same view has been reiterated in Bhanu Pratap v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 3272.
10. It is not disputed that no provision exists either under the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007 or any other law governing the field, regarding the manner of evaluation or re-evaluation of the answer scripts by the OPSC in the written examination held for the Odisha Judicial Service. Therefore, there is no justification for the Petitioner insisting on re-evaluation of her answer papers. The OPSC has had the evaluation of the answer scripts done by competent examiners. There is, therefore, no scope to direct a re-evaluation of the answer papers as prayed by the Petitioner, particularly, since no legal foundation has been laid to show that she has been singled out for a different treatment.
11. In the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), the evaluation of the paper has been made according to UP Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1976. Explaining the procedure of "moderation", Supreme Court was of the view that the scheme of evaluation of answer -5- scripts is intended to bring about a uniformity of assessment and by the process of "moderation", considerable uniformity would be achieved. In the present case, however, the question of moderation in the evaluation of the General English paper does not arise, as it is not envisaged either under the relevant recruitment rules or in the regulations of the OPSC.
12. In the result, finding no merit in the contentions of the Petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray ) Judge B.K. Barik