Orissa High Court
Rajani Padhan vs State Of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite … on 24 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14536 of 2024
along with
W.P.(C) No.26152 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Rajani Padhan .... Petitioner(s)
(In W.P.(C) No.14536 of 2024)
Rasmita Malik
(in W.P.(C) No.26152 of 2024)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sisir Kumar Purohit, Adv.
Mr. A.C. Behera, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
Mr. Arnav Behera, Adv.
(for O.P.3)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:- 06.12.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 24.12.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions have challenged their failure
in obtaining the cut-off mark by 1 (one) mark only owing to the change
Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
of key answer provide on 7.12.2023 changed by the Opp. Party No.3 on
14.5.2023.
2. The petitioner has requested a directive to the opposite parties to award
her an additional 3 marks–one for Question No. 100 in Paper-I, Set-A,
and two for Question No. 33 in Paper-II, Set-A. She has further prayed
for a declaration that she has cleared the OPSC examination conducted
pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2023-24.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The OPSC issued Advertisement No. 05 of 2023-24 to recruit
Homeopathic Medical Officers in the Group-B rank under the State.
Aspirants were invited to apply online before 16.06.2023 for a total of
105 vacancies, including 34 reserved for women. The petitioner, being a
Scheduled Tribe (ST) woman, falls under the 57 vacancies reserved for
ST candidates, of which 19 are for women.
(ii) The petitioner successfully applied and received an admission
certificate with Roll No. 100672. As per the schedule, the written
examination was held on 03.12.2023. The petitioner appeared for the test
on the given date and was allowed to take a copy of the question paper
and the OMR answer sheet with her after the exam.
(iii) To ensure transparency in the selection process, the Opp. Party No.3
released the key answers on 07.12.2023, shortly after the exam.
Candidates were invited to review their evaluation and submit
objections, if any, regarding the key answers or erroneous questions.
Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
This could be done through a prescribed format within seven days, as
stated in Notice No. 5393 dated 7.12.2023.
(iv) Subsequently, the OPSC conducted physical verification of original
certificates and documents for shortlisted candidates from 29.4.2024 to
2.5.2024. However, the petitioner’s name was not included in the list.
The final results were later published, and the petitioner’s name was not
on the list of qualified candidates.
(v) The petitioner claims that if the key answers released on 7.12.2023 had
been followed, she would have secured 78 marks and qualified based
on prorated marking. However, after requesting her mark sheet, she
discovered on 14.5.2024 that she was given a total of 79.381 marks based
on 77 correct answers: 27.835 marks in Paper-I and 51.546 in Paper-II.
This evaluation was based on the revised key answers released on
14.5.2024. The cut-off marks for the ST category were set at 40%.
(vi) The petitioner is challenging the loss of the cut-off mark by just one
point. This happened because the key answer for a question was
changed.
(vii) For Paper-II, Set A, Question No. 33 is produced as following:
“33. The first edition of Organon was published when Dr.
Hahnemann was at:
(A) Torgau
(B) Leipzig
(C) Meissen
(D) Merseburg”
(viii) The correct answer was listed as ‘A’ until 7.12.2023. However, on
14.5.2024, the answer was changed to ‘B’ by Opp. Party No. 3.
Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
(ix) Regarding Question No. 100 of Paper-I, Set-A, was as follows:
“100. The amount of Saliva secreted per day is
(A) 400 ml to 500 ml
(B) 800 ml to 1000 ml.
(C) 1200 ml to 1500 ml
(D) 1800 ml. to 2000 ml.”
(x) The correct answer was listed as ‘A’ until 7.12.2023. However, the
answer was changed to ‘C’ by Opp. Party No. 3.
(xi) The petitioner contends that awarding one mark each for Question No.
33 of Paper-II, Set-A, and Question No. 100 of Paper-I, Set-A, would
increase her total marks by 2. This would raise her aggregate score to 81
marks, which surpasses the cut-off of 80 marks set for Scheduled Tribe
Women. Consequently, the petitioner would qualify for the OPSC
examination.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
5. Regarding Paper-II, Set A, Question No. 33, the correct answer was
initially marked as ‘A’ until 07.12.2023. However/ on 14.05.2024, the
answer was changed to ‘B’ by Opposing Party No. 3. The petitioner
contends that the answer ‘A’ is supported by well-established textbooks
and commonly referenced reference books. Additionally, it was deemed
correct in the OPSC 2016 examination. Yet/ in 2024/ the same question’s
answer was abruptly revised to ‘B’.
6. In Question Paper-II, Set A, for the 2016-17 recruitment of Homeopathic
Medical Officers, the same question, originally numbered as No. 31, was
Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03presented. The key model answer provided by O.P.S.C. was (A), i.e.,
Torgau:
“31. The first edition of Organon of Medicine was published
from:
(A) Torgau
(B) Paris
(C) Leipzig
(D) Kolthen”
7. The petitioner asserts that the correct answer to Question No. 33 of
Paper-II, Set-A, is ‘A’ (Torgau) based on several authoritative
references. The book “Organon of Medicine” (ISBN-approved, 3rd
edition, 2022) by Dr. Mahendra Singh and Dr. Subash Singha, on page
60, mentions that the first edition of Organon was published in Torgau.
Similarly, “Comprehensive Study of Organon” by Dr. G. Nagendra
Babu states that the first edition, published in 1810, was released during
Dr. Hahnemann’s stay in Torgau. Additionally, the widely recognized
book “The Life & Letters of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann” by Thomas
Lindsey Bradford, on page 81, highlights that Dr. Hahnemann resided
in Torgau between 1805 and 1811, during which the first edition of
Organon was published in 1810. Based on these references, the
petitioner argues that the correct answer to Question No. 33 should
remain ‘A’ (Torgau) and that changing it to ‘B’ (Leipzig) in the revised
key answer is incorrect.
8. As for the Question No. 100; the petitioner answered ‘B’ (800 ml to 1000
ml), and this is supported by standard textbooks. According to
“Medical Physiology” by Guyton & Hall, the daily secretion of saliva
Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03ranges between 800 ml and 1500 ml, with an average value of 1000 ml.
Likewise, “Essentials of Medical Physiology” by K. Sambulingam and
Prema Sambulingam describes the secretion as between 1000 ml and
1500 ml per day, with approximately 1 ml secreted per minute. The
model key answer for this question, however, indicates ‘C’ (1200 ml to
1500 ml) as correct. The petitioner argues that, given the credible
references, both ‘B’ (800 ml to 1000 ml) and ‘C’ (1200 ml to 1500 ml)
should be accepted as correct answers.
9. Furthermore, in other instances, such as Paper-II Question No. 3, the
Opp. Party No.3 has accepted multiple correct answers. Hence, for
fairness and consistency, both answers for Question No. 100 should be
recognized as valid.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
10. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that prior to the written examination, eminent
individuals such as professors and associate professors from various
universities across India were appointed as question setters and paper
setters. After the completion of the examination, the OPSC published
the initial answer keys for Paper-I and Paper-II of the Homeopathic
Medical Officer examination, as provided by the question setters. This
was done pursuant to Advertisement No. 05 of 2023-24, through Notice
No. 5393/C-I/PSC dated 07.12.2023. The notice invited objections and
suggestions from candidates regarding the answer keys and any
erroneous questions within a period of seven days.
Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
(ii) Subsequently, the question papers, the answer keys supplied by the
question setters, and the objections or suggestions received from
candidates, including those submitted by the petitioner, were referred
to subject experts for their views and opinions on the correctness of the
questions and answers. The subject experts reviewed and addressed all
grievances, including the objections raised by the petitioner, before
finalizing the answer keys.
(iii) Based on the views and opinions of the subject experts, the Commission
finalized the answer keys and published the results accordingly. The
Commission’s process of inviting objections or suggestions was
transparent and the notice was duly published on its official website of
OPSC.
(iv) It is further submitted that one candidate, bearing Roll No. 100593, had
submitted a grievance concerning the answer key for Question No. 33 of
Paper-II. Additionally, two other candidates, bearing Roll Nos. 100672
and 100180, submitted grievances concerning Question No. 100 of
Paper-I. The answer keys provided by the question setters, along with
these grievances, were placed before the subject experts, who provided
their opinions on the correctness of the questions and answers to
address these issues comprehensively.
(v) The subject experts reviewed all grievances, including those concerning
Question No. 33 of Paper-II and Question No. 100 of Paper-I, and
determined that Option ‘B’ is the correct answer for Question No. 33,
while Option ‘C’ is correct for Question No. 100. Based on the opinions
and views submitted by the subject experts, the final answer keys for
Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
the recruitment to the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer, pursuant to
Advertisement No. 05 of 2023-24, were finalized, and the results were
subsequently published.
(vi) Regarding the non-selection of the petitioner, it is humbly submitted
that, upon verification of the relevant records, it was found that the
petitioner, Rajani Pradhan, bearing Roll No. 100672 and belonging to
the ST (Women) category, had secured 79.381 marks in the written
examination. The total marks for the examination were 200, with 100
marks allocated to Paper-I and 100 marks to Paper-II. The qualifying
mark for candidates in the ST category is 40%, equivalent to 80 marks.
(vii) As the petitioner scored below the qualifying marks, she was not
selected in the written examination for the recruitment in question..
IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:
11. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials
placed on record.
12. 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 they have evolved through judicial
interpretation.
13. 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.
Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
14. 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.
15. Nonetheless, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be entirely excluded
in cases where the answer key or evaluation process is demonstrably
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.
16. 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 key answer 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…”
1
(1983) 4 SCC 309
Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
17. 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 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.”
2
(2019) 18 SCC 39
Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
18. 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;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.”
3
(2018) 2 SCC 357
Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
19. In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and
Another v. Rahul Singh and Another,4 the Supreme Court was again
examining the extent and power of the Court to interfere in academic
matters. Reliance was placed on the earlier decisions of the Supreme
Court in Kanpur University (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh (supra) to
demonstrate and highlight why Constitutional Courts must exercise
judicial restraint. However, it was discernibly stated that the court can
interfere given the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are
patently wrong on the face of it. Relevant paragraphs from the
judgment are produced hereinbelow:
“12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to
not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also
that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no
inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the
key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts must exercise
great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to
entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.
In Kanpur University case [Kanpur University v. Samir
Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309], the Court recommended a system
of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected
questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before
publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got
the key answers moderated by two Expert Committees.
Thereafter, objections wer invited and a 26-member Committee
was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise
4
(2018) 7 SCC 254
Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in
2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that
these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for
which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the
role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate
demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the
face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh
the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and
then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better
or more correct.”
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
20. Having examined the guiding principles in this regard, this Court now
turns to the specific facts of the present case.
21. The petitioner has contested two 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 official answer keys
for the past year 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
cleared the cut-off for candidates belonging to the ST category,.
22. In Kanpur University (supra), 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’,
Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
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 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”.
Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. With respect to Question No. 33 of Paper-II, Set A, the Petitioner
contends that the answer ‘A. (Torgau)’ is substantiated by authoritative
and widely recognized reference textbooks. It is further asserted that
this answer was deemed correct in the OPSC examination conducted in
2016. However, in the year 2024, the same question’s correct answer has
been inexplicably altered causing inconsistency and raising doubts
about the accuracy of the evaluation process.
26. Now, this court has taken note of the fact that the question is
unequivocally objective and straight forward; there cannot be an
opinion because the question is factual.
27. A brief review of Question Paper-II, Set A, for the 2016-17 recruitment
of Homeopathic Medical Officers reveals that the same Question No. 31,
quoted below, shows that the key model answer provided by O.P.S.C.
indicated the correct option as (A), i.e., Torgau. The same is produced
hererinbelow:
Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03“31. The first edition of Organon of Medicine was published
from:
(A) Torgau
(B) Paris
(C) Leipzig
(D) Kolthen”
28. Moreover, the petitioner has substantiated that the correct answer to
Question No. 33 of Paper-II, Set-A, is ‘A’ (Torgau) based on
authoritative references. Notably, “Organon of Medicine” by Dr.
Mahendra Singh and Dr. Subash Singha, “Comprehensive Study of
Organon” by Dr. G. Nagendra Babu, and “The Life & Letters of Dr.
Samuel Hahnemann” by Thomas Lindsey Bradford collectively confirm
that the first edition of Organon was published in Torgau in 1810
during Dr. Hahnemann’s stay there. Thus, altering the correct answer to
‘B’ (Leipzig) in the revised key is erroneous and unsupported by these
credible sources.
29. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the answer to Question No. 33 is
erroneous and must be corrected to reflect ‘A. Torgau’ as the accurate
response.
30. At this juncture, I would like to add that, in the context of competitive
examinations, while answers to subjective questions may vary across
different iterations of the exam due to evolving interpretations or
updates in knowledge, objective questions inherently require
consistency. Objective questions are designed to test factual knowledge
and are evaluated against a definitive answer key. Once the answer to
an objective question has been officially established and validated in a
Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
prior examination, it should not be altered in subsequent years based on
a change in the opinion of experts for it undermines the credibility of
the examination process and creates unwarranted ambiguity.
31. Moreover, the answer key provided by the panel of experts should, as
far as practicable, align with established commentaries or widely
recognized reference books that candidates commonly rely upon, unless
there exists a compelling ambiguity or a valid reason to deviate.
Examinations of this nature are specifically designed to assess a
candidate’s knowledge, comprehension, and analytical skills based on
widely accepted principles and literature. If the answer key contradicts
such authoritative sources, it not only creates confusion but also
undermines the fundamental purpose of the examination. Such
discrepancies can unfairly disadvantage candidates who have prepared
diligently based on these references and cast doubts on the credibility
and transparency of the evaluation process.
(xii) Next, regarding Question No. 100 of Paper-I, Set-A, it is evident that no
definitive answer exists, as varying values have been proposed by
different authoritative sources within the field. In light of this
ambiguity, the Court deems it appropriate to defer to the opinion of the
expert committee and refrains from interfering with the answer
provided for this question.
VI. CONCLUSION:
32. In view of the foregoing, this court is of the opinion that it is not
appropriate to adopt a completely hands-off approach in this matter.
Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:03
The error in Question No. 33 is apparent, and overlooking it would
result in injustice to the Petitioner, despite the Court’s awareness of its
potential impact on the results of other candidates.
33. Consequently, the Court directs that the Petitioner’s result be revised to
reflect marks for Question No. 33 in line with the marking scheme and
the candidature of the petitioner be reconsidered in light of the revised
marks.
34. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
35. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the Writ Petitions, stands
vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 24th Dec., 2024
Page 18 of 18