CUTTACK: The Supreme Court has dismissed the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC)’s special leave petition (SLP) seeking intervention against the Orissa High Court order to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for procedural lapses that resulted in non-evaluation of an answer to a question in the case of a candidate who appeared for the Odisha Judicial Service (Main) examination.
In the order on Friday, a SC bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Bijay Bishnoi said, “Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the cost amount awarded by the high court in favour of the respondent - a young law graduate, who is aspiring to become a judicial officer.”
According to the case records, Jyotirmayee Dutta had appeared for the OJS Main Exam 2022. The results were declared on December 4, 2023, but she could not qualify for the next stage by a narrow margin of five marks.
On August 27, 2024, she filed a petition in high court alleging that a question in the Law of Property paper was left unevaluated, and its marks were not added to the total. If her answers had been properly scrutinised, she would have qualified for the next stage.
The high court then ordered for her answer script to be independently assessed by experts from three reputed universities. Though non-evaluation of a question was confirmed and marks were awarded for the question, the petitioner did not achieve the necessary marks to pass the examination.
Accordingly, the high court dismissed the petition on February 13 this year, but ordered, “However, considering the mental trauma and financial burden the petitioner has endured in pursuing this case to highlight the said lapse, this court deems it appropriate to award compensation of
Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the OPSC within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment.” However, the high court clarified, “It is made clear that the compensation is 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.”