Swetalina Patra v. Opposite

claim of the petitioner and they have confirmed the question to be within the syllabus.

It appears that if the petitioner had grievance of the questions being out of syllabus, such a discrepancy could have been addressed in the stipulated time frame i.e., 06.10.2021-08.10.2021 (3 days). Moreover, the opposite party in the counter-affidavit has categorically stated they disposed off 577 representations in respect of 76 questions, out of which two questions i.e., Q. 126 & 149 were nullified for having wrong answers and grace marks were provided to all candidates in that respect. It can be ascertained from the petitioner’s rejoinder affidavit that she had not submitted her representation/ objection against the alleged two questions i.e. question Nos.2786694 and 2786705. 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 // 4 // judgment in the Union of India v. M.L. Kapur1, "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".

The prayer of the petitioner to re-evaluate the answer script is also unsustainable as the candidates selected for the concerned examination have been engaged since 15.12.2021. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth2 had opined that:

It is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality inspection, If them. attached verification the presence of candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation preference formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational the departments institutions to academic matters 1 1974 AIR 87 2 1984 AIR 1543. // 5 // controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded, in the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost fool-proof.

unmindful

Further, In the case of Bismaya Mohanty And Ors. vs Board Of Secondary Education3, the court observed that it is not in dispute that the Regulations of the Board do not permit review, and as such no review of the answer-script can be done. It cannot be denied that an examiner has a right to fair-play and get appropriate marks according to his performance. What constitutes fair-play depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer scripts inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with checks and cross-checks at different stages, and that measures for detection of 3 1996 I OLR 134. // 6 // malpractice has also been effectively adopted in such cases it would not be proper for the Court to interfere.

Since the present set of facts suggest that the examination was a computer-based test, it eliminates any possibility for human intervention in both examination and evaluation phase. Due to lack of evidence suggesting possible malpractice, imperative that the due process involved in evaluation of answer scripts be followed without hinderance from courts. In the case of H.P Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr4, the Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.

Having considered the matter in the aforesaid perspective and guided by the precedents cited hereinabove, this Court allows and uphelds the 4 (2010) 6 SCC 759. // 7 // defence of the Opposite Party No.2 and rejects the prayer of the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of being dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( S.K.Panigrahi ) Judge BJ