Forensic report finds answer-sheet marks overwritten in different ink; Odisha High Court orders District Judge aspirant’s interview

The Orissa High Court issued Advertisement No. 05 of 2023 for direct recruitment of 23 District Judges from the Bar under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

The petitioner, being eligible, applied and appeared in the written examination held on 5 November 2023.

She secured 65 marks in Paper I, 52 marks in Paper II and, according to the marks published on the High Court website, 42 marks in Paper III—General English.

Since the advertisement required a minimum of 45% marks in each written paper and 50% in aggregate for eligibility for interview, she was not called for the interview.

Upon obtaining her evaluated answer script under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner asserted that the script reflected 45 marks in Paper III, whereas the tabulation sheet and published result recorded 42 marks.

During the proceedings, the Court noticed apparent overwriting and alterations in the marks recorded on the answer script and directed forensic examination of the original script.

Whether the petitioner had actually secured 45 marks, rather than 42 marks, in Paper III—General English, and whether the marks had been improperly altered or wrongly computed?

Whether, upon correction of her Paper III marks to 45, the petitioner became eligible to appear in the interview for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge from the Bar, 2023?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction permitting her to participate in the interview despite completion of the recruitment process?

The Court applied the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007, together with Advertisement No. 05 of 2023, which governed the recruitment process and examination scheme.

Under the prescribed scheme, a candidate could be called for interview only upon securing at least 45% marks in each written paper and 50% marks in aggregate.

The Court also applied the principle that a candidate’s entitlement must be determined from the authentic examination record and that an administrative or computational error in evaluation cannot deprive an otherwise qualified candidate of consideration.

The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked to correct the demonstrable error and provide consequential relief.

The petitioner had already secured 65 marks in Paper I and 52 marks in Paper II, and therefore satisfied the minimum requirement in those papers.

Examination of the original answer script, together with the forensic report, established that the marks recorded against Paper III had been altered by overwriting in different ink and that the marks were subsequently manipulated or incorrectly reflected in the tabulation.

Although the forensic examiner could not identify the author of the alterations, the Court relied on the marks attributable to the individual answers and the physical condition of the script to determine that the petitioner’s correct Paper III score was 45, not 42.

Since the opposite parties themselves accepted that a score of 45 in Paper III, along with the marks in Papers I and II, would make the petitioner eligible for interview, the Court concluded that her exclusion resulted from the erroneous recording of marks and not from failure to satisfy the prescribed eligibility threshold.

The fact that the original interview committee had partly ceased to exist due to superannuation did not prevent the Court from directing constitution of a fresh committee.

The writ petition was allowed.

The Registrar General was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice on the administrative side, facilitate constitution of a committee of Judges, and take necessary steps to conduct the petitioner’s interview for the District Judge recruitment from the Bar, 2023, preferably within two weeks.

No order as to costs was made, and the forensic report was directed to be resealed and retained in the custody of the Registrar General.