The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29836 of 2023 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Sangeeta Panda State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32702 of 2023 Swagatika Das State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33453 of 2023 Simanchal Tadingi …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33451 of 2023 Nitish Kumar Ray …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 2 // W.P.(C) No.33448 of 2023 Gopal Chandra Pati …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33445 of 2023 Sameer Chandra Mandal …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33443 of 2023 Elisaya Mutha Majhi …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
this Court in W.P.(C) No.23223 of 2013 & batch of similar other writ applications, which were disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2013. By referring to the aforesaid order dated 25.10.2013, learned counsels for the Petitioners submitted that with respect to the O.T.E.T. Examination of the previous year, the Board of Secondary Education has awarded additional marks to the Petitioners in those batch of cases. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ
Arguments
Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33439 of 2023 Aparajita Nath …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 3 // W.P.(C) No.33437 of 2023 Umesh Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33436 of 2023 Puspanjali Parida …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33433 of 2023 Samir Malik State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33416 of 2023 Jyotir Moyee Nayak …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 4 // W.P.(C) No.33412 of 2023 Sasmita Kar State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33410 of 2023 Tulasi Biswal State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33409 of 2023 Renuka Patro …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33407 of 2023 Rupali Panigrahi …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 5 // W.P.(C) No.33402 of 2023 Kuni Biswal State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33361 of 2023 Alija Parween State of Odisha & others Petitioner …. Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32901 of 2023 Sobhabati Rout State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32726 of 2023 Suchitra Behera …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 6 // W.P.(C) No.32724 of 2023 Laxman Chouhan …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32721 of 2023 Jitesh Kumar Behera …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32716 of 2023 Pragnya Bharati Meher …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32713 of 2023 Supriya Barik State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 7 // W.P.(C) No.32711 of 2023 Smruti Rekha Biswal …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32708 of 2023 Snehanjali Barik State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32711 of 2023 Smruti Rekha Biswal …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32213 of 2023 Deepika Mohanty State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 8 // W.P.(C) No.32098 of 2023 Krishna Mohanty State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.32052 of 2023 Sandhyarani Dash -versus- Board of Secondary Education, Odisha & another …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Rath, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.31440 of 2023 Debasmita Sahu State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.31292 of 2023 Rabindra Behera -versus- Board of Secondary Education, Odisha & another …. Mr. S.C. Dev Dash, Advocate Petitioner …. Opposite Parties Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 9 // W.P.(C) No.29842 of 2023 Susama Biswal State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.29840 of 2023 Sangeeta Panda State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate …. W.P.(C) No.29838 of 2023 Labanya Khamari State of Odisha & others …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate W.P.(C) No.33441 of 2023 Jagyan Narayan Bisoyee …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate // 10 // W.P.(C) No.33456 of 2023 Kishor Kumar Padhan …. Petitioner Ms. Shradhashree Routray, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. Mr.S.S.Rao, Sr. Advocate for B.S.E. along with Mr. S.E. Haque, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 07.02.2024 | Date of Judgment: 07.02.2024 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board of Secondary Education along with Mr. S.E. Haque, learned counsel and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No.2-Board as well as the documents annexed to the pleadings of the respective parties. 2. The present batch of writ applications have been filed with identical prayers for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2- // 11 // Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack to award grace marks to the petitioners with respect to certain questions regarding which the Petitioners have stated to have given the correct answers in the O.T.E.T. Examination-2022 and, a further prayer has also been made for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to declare the Petitioners as qualified in O.T.E.T. examination in 2022 in Paper-1 (Set-D) after communicating the revised mark to the Petitioners within a stipulated period of time. 3. The factual background, which is common in all of the above noted writ applications is that, the Petitioners, who are eligible to appear in O.T.E.T. examination 2022, initially filled up their forms to appear in such examination. The Opposite Party No.2-Board after due scrutiny of their application forms allowed the Petitioners to appear in the written examination conducted by the Opposite Party No.2. It is needless to mention here that the Opposite Party No.2 is conducting Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) pursuant to the guidelines vide resolution dated 04.06.2012 of the School and Mass Education Dept., Govt. of Odisha. 4. So far the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29836 of 2023 is concerned, she was assigned with a Roll No.22120715184. Accordingly, she appeared in the written examination. In the written examination, the Petitioner has secured 89 marks out of 150 marks. Since the qualifying mark is 90, the Petitioner fell // 12 // short of one mark to qualify in the examination, as a result of which she was declared unsuccessful in the examination. After publication of the final result of the O.T.E.T. Examination-2022 on 31.08.2023 by the Opposite Party No.2, the Board published the answer key since the examination conducted was objective type with Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) pattern. 5. After publication of the answer key on the website 31.08.2023, the petitioner verified the same and found that certain marks have not been awarded, although the Petitioner has given the correct answer to the aforesaid questions. She further detected that the model answer key which was uploaded in the website, provides wrong answers to the questions. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that as a result of such wrong model answer key, the Petitioner has not been awarded marks in respect of certain questions to which the Petitioner had given correct answers. As such it was submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to get additional marks on account of those wrong model answer key prepared by the examining body. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the answer script of the Petitioner has not been properly evaluated by the examining body. As a result of which the Petitioner has not been awarded proper marks and she has been declared failed by the Opposite Party No.2. He further contended that the // 13 // declaration of such erroneous result has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and to her career ambitions. 6. In his writ application, the Petitioner has referred to certain questions in respect of which the model answer key prepared by the Expert Body is not correct. He also contended that the question paper prepared by the examining body is not in conformity with the School and Mass Education Dept., Govt. of Odisha resolution dated 04.06.2012. He further specifically referred to question Nos.10, 14, 75 in paper-1 (Set-D) of the O.T.E.T. Examination-2022. 7. Learned counsels appearing in the connected batch of writ applications referred to certain questions in different Sets provided to them in course of the O.T.E.T. examination-2022. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by referring to materials on record and by demonstrating errors in the model answer key prepared by the Expert Body constituted by the B.S.E., Odisha. Accordingly, it was submitted before this Court that owning to the wrong answer key, the answer scripts of the petitioners have not been properly evaluated, as a result of which, the Petitioners allege that they have been seriously prejudiced and such erroneous evaluation has impacted their career prospects. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in paragraph-9 of the writ application has categorically stated that // 14 // after publication of the result by the Board authorities, the Petitioner along with other similarly situated persons, including the Petitioners in the batch of writ applications, ventilated their grievances before the Opposite Party No.2 with a prayer to award additional marks to the persons who are affected by the preparation of such wrong answer key and the consequential erroneous evaluation. He further contended that their grievances were ventilated before the Opposite Party No.2 by meeting with the President of O.P. No.2 in person. It was also contended before this Court that pursuant to the direction and assurance of the Opposite Party No.2, the affected candidates submitted their grievance petitions specifically mentioning about the wrong model answers to the questions attempted by them in the said examination. 9. In the writ application, the Petitioner has alleged that after re-evaluation of the marks, the Board has enhanced the marks in respect of certain candidates, namely, Soubhagyarani Nayak, Santuram Harijan, Parsuram Naik, Jasoda Minz, Manjulata Naik and similarly situated many other candidates. It was also contended before this Court that on objection being made to such wrong evaluation by the examination body on the basis of the wrong model answer key, the Board authorities referred the matter to a specially constituted Expert Body. On verification by // 15 // such Expert Body and on their suggestion, the marks of the above named candidates along with many other similarly situated candidates have been revised and accordingly a revised result has been published in respect of those candidates. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the Petitioners have submitted their objection to the model answer key, however, the same has not been referred to the Expert Body as has been done in similar other cases by the Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly such erroneous key answers have not been examined by the Expert Body. Eventually, it was argued that such conduct of the Opposite party No.2 not only tantamounts to gross discrimination against the present Petitioners but also the same is illegal and arbitrary. 10. In course of his argument, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners referred to the judgment in the case of Saswat Bej vs. State of Odisha & anr. reported in 2017 (II) OLR 345. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsels for the Petitioners submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court after detecting mistakes in the multiple choice question and the awarding of mark as per the model answer key prepared by the Opposite Party No.2- Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack, issued directions to make necessary correction in consonance with the syllabus and re-compute the marks within a // 16 // stipulated period of time. He also referred to an order passed by
Decision
application was disposed of by this Court with an observation that in the event, the petitioners submitted application for appointment to the post of Sikhya Sahayaka, the same shall be accepted by the Project Director, OSEPA by extending the last date of submission. 11. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Board, on the other hand submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable in view of the settled legal position. In course of his argument, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Board referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava reported in 2004 (6) SCC 714. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Board contended that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has a right // 17 // whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his answer script. In such a situation, the prayer made by writ petitioner is wholly untenable. 12. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and anr. vs. Partosh Bhupash Kumarsheth reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 to impress upon this Court that the result published by the Board has some sanctity and some finality has to be attached to the same, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment, and that the re-evaluation or verification are to be permitted subject to the rules and regulations in that regard. Similarly, he has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HP PSC vs. Mukesh Thakur reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 to submit before this Court that the Court cannot take upon itself the task of statutory authorities. 13. In course of the argument, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Opposite party No.2 also referred to order dated 04.02.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.20691 of 2020 and a batch of other similar writ applications in the matter of Bibhudananda Hati & ors. vs. Board of Secondary Education, Odisha & ors. to submit before this Court that, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a recent judgment has taken a view that in absence of any // 18 // provision in the rule, no re-evaluation of answer paper is permissible. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Bibhudananda Hati’s case (supra) was confirmed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No.247 of 2021 vide judgment dated 11.06.2021. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 also contended that at the initial stage, taking into consideration the objection raised by some of the candidates, the matters were referred for examination by an Expert Committee constituted by the Board. In the said context, he also submitted that after publication of the result, the Board invited objection to the model answer key from the candidates. The objection which were received by the Board were sent for examination by the Expert Body and accordingly, on the basis of the suggestions made by the Expert Body, in many cases additional marks have been granted and their final results have been modified by the Board. 15. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Petitioners did not raise any objection before the Board, therefore, their cases were not sent to the Expert Body along with the objections of other candidates, who had specifically submitted objections before the Board-O.P. No.2. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that // 19 // since the Petitioners have not availed the opportunity that was granted by the Board to all the candidates, they are estopped from raising such objection at this belated stage. Accordingly, the right which was given to them to raise objection has extinguished with the passage of time and, the same cannot be enforced at this belated stage. On the aforesaid submission, learned Senior counsel for Board contended that the writ applications are devoid of merit, and accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 16. Having Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the batch of writ applications which have been taken up for consideration together and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Board, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and, on a careful consideration of the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto, this Court observes that the issue involved in the present writ application is with regard to the publication of the model answer key containing wrong answers as alleged and demonstrated by the Petitioners. The main allegation of the Petitioners is that although they have given the correct answers, however, they have not been awarded marks for such questions which have been correctly answered by them in the answer script. // 20 // 17. To impress upon this Court that the Petitioners have answered correctly, learned counsels appearing for the respective parties in different writ application made an attempt to demonstrate before this Court that several questions in different Sets of question papers used in O.T.E.T. examination-2022, have been evaluated on the basis of the wrong model answer key. Although learned Senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Board submitted that the Board, after coming to know about such errors in the model answer key, has given an opportunity to the candidates to raise their objections before the Board and the objections so received were sent to an Expert Body which was constituted for the purpose and on re-examination of the model answers by such Expert Body and basing upon their suggestions, the marks awarded to some of the deserving candidates have been altered in favour of said candidates. He would further argue that since the Petitioners have not availed such opportunity, their cases cannot be considered at this belated stage. 18. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court observed that there is no doubt with regard to the fact that there are some answers in the model answer key which were wrong. Accordingly, the Board has done the right thing by forwarding the same to the Expert Body constituted for // 21 // the purpose. Therefore, the Opposite party No.2 keeping in view a fair and transparent examination has not committed any illegality in referring the objections regarding the model answer key to the Expert Body so constituted. The only question that is required to be determined in the present case, is, whether the Petitioners had submitted their objection before the Board in time? 19. In the reply to the aforesaid question, this Court found that in para-9 of the writ application, the Petitioners have taken a specific averment that they had approached the Opposite Party No.2-Office and after meeting the person in-charge, i.e. the President of Opposite Party No.2, in person they have submitted their objections. Despite such submission of objections, the Opposite Party No.2 has not forwarded the same to the Expert Body as a result of which the same has not been examined by the Expert Body which was considering objections filed by other similar candidates with regard to some of the wrong answers in the model answer key. Although no documentary evidence have been filed in support of such contention that such objections were submitted before the Opposite Party No.2, on a careful examination of the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2, this Court finds that the assertion made in para-9 of the writ application has not been specifically denied. // 22 // 20. Moreover, Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the Opposite party No.2 has forwarded only those objections which have been specifically received by the office of Opposite party No.2 pursuant to the publication of the notice to file such objections in a time bound manner. In the aforesaid factual background, it is difficult to come to a conclusion as to whether the Petitioners have filed such objections before the Board authorities or not. But the fact remains that they have approached this Court by filing the present writ applications for a direction to the Board to evaluate the answer script properly by taking into consideration the correct answers to the questions answered by them. This Court is also conscious of the fact that allowing the objections of group candidates, while not taking action on the objection of the other group, who are similarly placed, would amount to gross discrimination and the same would be bit by aritlce-14 of the Constitution of India. 21. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board referred to the judgment in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava and many other judgments on the same issue. The issues involved in Pramod Kumar Srivastava’s case and other judgments referred to by Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, basically pertains to the issue as to whether this Court can direct // 23 // for re-evaluation of an answer script of any candidate in the absence of any specific rule/ regulation of the examination conducting body. In contradistinction, this Court found that in the present batch of writ applications the issue is something different. In the present batch of writ applications the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 for re-evaluation of the mark sheet challenging the model answer key and for a direction to evaluate the answer script on the basis of correct answers as would be suggested by the Expert Body which was constituted by the Board. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava’s case and other similar judgments are on a different issue than the issue involved in the present writ application and as such the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, this Court also observes that after accepting the objection raised by many of the candidates the Board has constituted an Expert Body and such objections were referred to by Expert Body. Therefore, a particular mechanism/ procedure has been followed in respect of certain candidates who had raised objection with regard to the errors in the Model Answer Key. 22. So far the petitioners are concerned, although it is claimed that they had raised such objection before the Board, however, the same has not been referred to such Expert Body for // 24 // examination. Since the Board has already adopted a particular procedure/ mechanism, this Court is of the considered view that it would be within the scope and jurisdiction of this Court to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to refer the cases of the present Petitioners to Expert Body constituted by the Opposite Party No.2 for examination of the objections raised by the Petitioners with regard to the Model Answer Key. Further, this Court feels that such directions would be in the larger interest of justice, as otherwise the Petitioners would stand discriminated and not treating the Petitioners at par with such candidates would tantamount to gross violation of article-14 of the Constitution of India. 23. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, this Court deems it proper to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to refer the objections raised by the petitioners in the present batch of writ applications to the Expert Body constituted by the Board, as expeditiously as possible. The Expert Body constituted be also asked to submit its report within a period of two weeks from the date the issue is referred to the Expert Body. In the event the Expert Body suggests any alteration, the same may be carried out and accordingly, the marks awarded to the petitioners in the answer script be re-evaluated and a final mark sheet be published in respect of the petitioners. // 25 // 24. While disposing of the present writ applications, this Court further directs that the order passed in the batch of writ applications shall be confined to the present petitioners only. No other person, who has not approached the Board or this Court, shall be entitled to take advantage of this order. Further, while examining the answers objected to by the Petitioner, the Expert Body shall exclude the answers which have already been examined by them on the basis of objections by some candidates on the earlier occasions. In other words, the examination of the Expert Body shall be confined to those questions which have not been referred to the Expert Body earlier. It is further made clear that the Petitioners, who have been allowed to participate in the Junior Teachers Schematic Recruitment Test pursuant to the interim order of this Court, their final result in O.T.E.T. examinations shall be subject to the final result to be declared by the Board. It is further made clear that the petitioners who have been permitted to appear in the recruitment test by virtue of the interim order shall not claim any equity on the basis of such permission and no right shall accrue in their favour on the basis of the fact that they were permitted to appear in the recruitment test as an interim measure. // 26 // 25. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 07th of February, 2024/ Anil/ Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Feb-2024 18:51:02