JITENDRA PALEI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the applicants for the posts of Lecturer in History in Non-Government Aided Colleges of Odisha, pursuant to advertisement no.003 of 2018 issued by State Selection Board-opposite party no.2, have filed these writ petitions challenging the written examination conducted, on the ground that the set up questions were defective, inasmuch as there were spelling mistakes, printing errors, wrong questions and discrepancies in questions having doubtful answers.

(2.) The facts of the case, which are essential for the purpose of deciding this case, are that in order to fill up 81 vacancies in the post of Lecturer in History, State Selection Board published an advertisement bearing No.003/2018 in its website. Out of 81 posts, 27 were reserved for women, 18 for S.T. including 6 for women, 13 for S.C. including 4 for women, 9 for SEBC including 3 for women and 41 for U.R. including 14 for women. The advertisement indicates that the selection shall be made on the basis of career 25 marks (Ph.D 25 and M. Phil & or NET 10), written 165 marks (Objective Type), viva voce 10 marks and in total 200 marks. Written examination in the concerned subject shall be conducted as per the syllabus given in the website (which may be considered as a model syllabus at par with the curriculum recommended by different Universities and leading colleges of the State) carrying 165 marks and questions for this 165 marks shall be of objective type (multiple choice), which are to be answered in OMR sheet and the examination will be of three hours duration.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that when a large chunk questions are demonstrably and palpably wrong, ambiguous, out of course, or options are not given in proper manner, and it which attracts negative marking, the result of examination should be cancelled and the petitioner should be allowed to sit in the fresh examination to be conducted for determination of their merits and eligibility. It is further contended that if a large chunk of questions are wrong, ambiguous or otherwise not in consonance with the syllabus prescribed and there is provision for awarding of negative marking, in that case, awarding of pro-rata mark would cause grave prejudice to the examinees and it would be detrimental to their own interest. It is further contended that due to indifferent attitude of the State Selection Board (SSB), the examinees suffer from casualty. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Madhumala Bisoyee & others v. Odisha Public Service Commission, 2015 2 OrissaLR 413 and Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2013 AIR(SC) 2652.