Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
P. Patnaik, J.
Bibhudananda Pratap Hati - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education - Respondent
W.P. (C) (Writ Petition (Civil)) No. 20691 of 2020, 20941 of 2020, 20795 of 2020, 26697 of 2020, 26202 of 2020, 25766 of 2020, 25736 of 2020, 24144 of 2020, 22980 of 2020, 22230 of 2020, 22099 of 2020, 22095 of 2020, 22089 of 2020, 20785 of 2020, 22080 of 2020, 22076 of 2020, 21110 of 2020, 20800 of 2020, 20685 of 2020, 29179 of 2020, 21762 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2021
OSSTET - RE-EVALUATION OF ANSWER SHEETS - GRACE MARKS - WRIT JURISDICTION - GUIDELINES - EXPERT COMMITTEE - MALA FIDE - FAIR PLAY - PUBLIC INTEREST - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE OF POWER - ASSESSMENT OF QUESTION - RE-APPRECIATION - PROHIBITION ON REVALUATION - KEY ANSWERS - PUBLICATION - OBJECTIONS - TRANSPARENCY - FAIRNESS - PERFECTION - MALPRACTICE - SYLLABUS - ACADEMIC MATTERS - TECHNICAL EXPERTISE - PRAGMATIC APPROACH - PEDANTIC APPROACH - IDEALISTIC APPROACH - UNWORKABLE SYSTEM - INTER SE MERIT - STATUTORY RULES/REGULATIONS - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - MALA FIDE - CORRUPT PRACTICE - AMBIGUITY - CHALLENGES - SUBJECT EXPERTS - SCORING KEYS - SYMPATHY - CHAOS - CONFUSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were unsuccessful in the Odisha Secondary Teachers Eligibility Test (OSSTET), filed writ petitions seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets and award of grace marks for alleged wrong answers and incorrect key answers. The Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, opposed the petitions, contending that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the guidelines, that the key answers were presumed to be correct, and that the petitioners had not alleged any mala fide or corrupt practice on the part of the examiners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the guidelines, re-evaluation was not permissible. The Court further held that the key answers were presumed to be correct and that the petitioners had not demonstrated that the key answers were incorrect. The Court also held that the petitioners had not alleged any mala fide or corrupt practice on the part of the examiners. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether re-evaluation is permissible in the absence of any provision in the guidelines? 2. Whether the Court can re-assess the question and re-appreciate the views of the Expert Committee? 3. Whether direction can be made for re-assessment of the question paper notwithstanding the fact that adequate precautions have been taken for rectification of the mistake by the expert body?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the guidelines, re-evaluation is not permissible. 2. The Court cannot re-assess the question and re-appreciate the views of the Expert Committee. 3. Direction cannot be made for re-assessment of the question paper notwithstanding the fact that adequate precautions have been taken for rectification of the mistake by the expert body.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P.Patnaik, J. - The above mentioned writ applications are founded on similar facts and with the consent of the respective counsels, the matters have been heard analogously and all the writ applications are disposed of by this common order/judgment.
2. The petitioners in different writ applications being aggrieved with the marks awarded in the Odisha Secondary Teachers Eligibility Test, hereinafter referred to in short as 'OSTET' filed the aforesaid writ applications contending common plea and praying inter alia for re-evaluation of answer sheets once again and for awarding of extra marks, solely on the ground that some of the key answers being wrong and the petitioners are entitled to grace marks which would result in all the petitioners being qualified in the said test because the petitioners have been prejudiced for being unsuccessful due to lack of 1 to 3 marks only.
WRIT PETITIONS
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20691 of 2020 has challenged the action of the opposite parties in not awarding proper marks in the answer scripts for 'OSSTET' Examination, 2019 with regard to Paper-I Set-'C'. The petitioner being Science graduate appeared the 'OSSTET' examination on 22.01.2020. As per the result sheet, he was awarded 74 marks and he became unsuccessful for one mark only and the grounds stated in the writ application is that Question No.22 in Set-'C' although correct answer on the basis of Oxford Dictionary i.e., Leizy, there is no choice given in the Booklet. So, the petitioner is entitled to get one grace mark. Accordingly he would get 75 marks to be declared as pass in the aforesaid examination. Due to inaction of the opposite parties, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20941 of 2020 has challenged the action of the opposite parties in not awarding proper marks in Question No.37 in English Compulsory, Question No.57, Section-III in English Optional, Question No.120 Section C/IV. The grievance of the petitioner is that she became disqualified having secured 89 marks due to lack of one mark only. The petitioner is entitled to three grace mark in addition to the marks obtained as declared by the Board. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to rectify the defect found in the question pattern and with regard to question Nos. 37, 57 and 120 in 'OSSTET' Examination, 2019 Paper I Set-'D' conducted by the Board of Secondary Education and direction be made to opposite party no.2 to declare the petitioner as a qualified awarding three marks in addition to the marks objection i.e. 89+3= 92 marks.
5. In W.P.(C) No.20795 of 2020, the petitioner has been aggrieved by the award of marks in the answer scripts for 'OSSTET' Examination, 2019 with regard to Paper-I Set-'D'. The petitioner has been awarded 87 marks and she became unsuccessful due to want of three marks. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that though she has given correct answer in Question Nos.119, 120, 123 and 13 in Odia whereas she has not been awarded marks. The petitioner has prayed for award of marks in Question Nos.119, 120, 123 and 13 in Odia and to declare the petitioner to have qualified in 'OSSTET' Examination, 2019.
6. In W.P.(C) No.26697 of 2020 the petitioner has challenged the action of the opposite parties in not awarding proper marks in the 'OSSTET' Examination, 2019 with regard to Paper-I Set-'A', the petitioner became unsuccessful due to want of two marks only. It has been averred in the writ application that Question No.37 in Set-'A', Question No.8 in Odia, Question Nos.32 and 36 in English Compulsory and Question No.63 in English Optional, the petitioner has not been awarded marks. Had she been awarded marks properly she would have qualified in the said Examination. The grievance of the petitioner having not been redressed she has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
