Presumption of correctness in the answer key, limitations of court intervention in examination evaluations, and the importance of fairness and accuracy in evaluation processes.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The present petition has been directed against the improper evaluation of answer paper in the Orissa Secondary School Teacher Eligibility Test (OSSTET) 2021; whereby the Petitioner assails the evaluation method and the final selection list and has preferred an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of the matter presented before this court remain that the petitioner had applied for the post of Hindi Teacher and appeared for the OSSTET Examination at Ravenshaw Girls High School, Cuttack on 04.10.2021.

5. The petitioner was quite hopeful and confident of getting qualified owing to her performance in the OSSTET Examination. However, to her dismay, she had scored 88 marks, while the cutoff for female candidates with UR Category was 90.

6. The petitioner has contended that answer to Question nos.30, 102 & 105, insofar as the Answer Key provided by the Opposite Party is concerned, is different in comparison to other authentic sources i.e., from standard textbooks taught to students, internet etc. The petitioner has submitted that the correct answers to above-mentioned question numbers is 30-B, 102-D, 105-C as opposed to 30-A, 102-D, 105-C which has been provided in the Answer Key released by the Opposite Party.

7. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 26.10.2021, the Question Analysis Committee has considered the matter and an Information Sheet dated 28.10.2021 and bearing Memo no. 832 has been filed offering the following views:

“The objections received alongwith supporting documents on question nos.30, 102 and 105, Paper-I, Set-C of OSSTET-2021 were placed before the Question Analysis Committee….As per the recommendation of the committee, the answers to questions provided by the Board are correct.”

8. Indisputably, in the case at hand, this Court is of the view that the answer key prepared by the Opp. Parties or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. Moreover, the discrepancies assailed in relation to the questions at issue, has been categorically redressed by the Opposite Parties through Information Sheet dated 28.10.2021.

9. In the present case, this Court needs to see what is legally possible and not what possibly dehors the legal process. A thing that may seem plausible on the grounds of natural justice may not be possible legally. As succinctly put by Mathew, J in his judgment in the Union of India v. M.L. Kapur, W.P. No. 20894 (W) of 2013,

"It is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the Audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be".

10. This Court having gone through the counter affidavit is of the considered view that adequate precautions have been taken before evaluation of the answer scripts and when the expert committee has already taken the decision, this court will be at loathe to substitute its own view. If the view taken by the technical expert can evaluate the answer when there is mistake in question-and-answer scripts, it is for all the candidates and there can be no discrimination. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vrs. Paritosh Bhupash Kumarsheth, AIR 1984 S.C. 1543. The paragraph 29 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

“Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. 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 technica