Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today pulled up the Odisha Public Service Commission (Odisha PSC) over laxity shown in evaluation of answer script of a judicial services' candidate.

Briefly put, the case pertained to the Odisha Judicial Service Examination-2022, wherein a candidate's answer to a question carrying 12.5 marks was not evaluated.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and refused to set aside the cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed by Odisha High Court on the Commission.

However, owing to certain apprehensions shown by the Odisha PSC, it clarified that the cost imposed was in the context of the mistake detected in the case and the High Court order shall not act as a precedent.

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the cost amount awarded by the High Court on prayer of the respondent, a young law graduate, who was aspiring to become a judicial officer. The observations made in the impugned judgment are only in the context of the mistake detected in evaluation of one of the question paper and the same are not a precedent to be applied for future cases", the Court ordered.

Though it was requested on behalf of Odisha PSC that the Court expunge the remarks made by the High Court against the Commission, including in connection with the credibility of its examination process, the bench did not set aside any observations.

"How the young generation will have faith and trust in you?" Justice Kant questioned the Commission. "You should have candidly gone to the High Court and accepted that yes there was a mistake and we would like to be careful in future", the judge added, expressing displeasure with the adamant attitude of the Commission (in not accepting the error).

Justice Datta, on the other hand, noted that the examiner was not named by the High Court and expressed that the imposition of cost would make the Commission's examiners more vigilant.

"A judicial services examination and your examiner does not evaluate one question...3 colleges to which the answer sheet was referred to, they have said in unison that [question No.] 5(a) was not evaluated...even 1 lakh (cost) is nothing...this will make the examiners working under you more vigilant", said the judge.

So far as Odisha PSC argued that the answer sheet was evaluated and placed before the High Court, Justice Kant said that if High Court committed a factual error, the Commission can file an application and get the order rectified.

In response to the contention that examiners are third-parties (not part of the examination process), the judge further said the responsibility still lies with the Commission and it cannot commit such blunders. "They are employed by you, you avail their services, it's your responsibility ultimately".

Notably, Justice Datta also suggested that if another order like the impugned one (imposing Rs.1 lakh cost) is passed by the High Court, the Commission may request that the cost be made recoverable from the concerned examiner.

Background

The petitioner-Jyotirmayee Dutta, after successfully qualifying the Preliminary Examination of the Odisha Judicial Service-2022, had appeared for the Mains Written Examination. She had taken 'Law of Property' as an optional paper, apart from 2 other optional papers and 2 compulsory papers.

Though she fetched reasonably high scores in all other papers, she was given a meagre score of 53 marks in the paper of 'Law of Property'. She was short of only 5 marks to qualify the Mains examination. Having impressive academic credentials and being confident of her answers, she applied for copy of her answer scripts, which was provided to her only after seven months of publication of final merit list.

Upon perusal of the answer sheet, she discovered that a long question carrying 12.5 marks was left unevaluated. Apart from non-evaluation, she also found that most of her answers were evaluated in a cursory manner without adhering to the scheme of evaluation and despite having all characteristics of ideal answers, those were given unreasonably low marks.

Being aggrieved by non-evaluation as well as unreasonable marking, she filed a writ petition before the High Court.

In February, 2025, though the candidate did not get desired relief, the High Court orally criticized the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for "haphazard scrutiny" and awarded a cost of Rs.1 lakh in the petitioner's favor. It further clarified that the compensation was awarded to acknowledge the procedural flaw brought to light and to serve as a 'reminder' for OPSC to maintain stricter scrutiny in its evaluation processes.

Case Title: THE CHAIRMAN, ODISHA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus JYOTIRMAYEE DUTTA AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 15360/2025