JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. The petitioner, who is an unsuccessful candidate in the interview held by the Odisha Public Service Commission in the matter of Odisha Judicial Service Main Written Examination, 2013-14 by filing this writ petition sought following reliefs: Direct the Opp.Parties to evaluate and award marks in Question No.12(b) (i) to (v) in the Law of Property under Annexure-5; i-a) further be pleased to hold that the scheme of valuation/scheme of evaluation so far as the Question No.12 (b) (i) (ii) (iv) in Law of Property Paper of OJS main written examination, 2014 is concerned are not correct and consequentially any evaluation done on the basis of the same is not correct and direction may kindly be given to award full marks in Question No. 12(b) (i) to (v). (i) Direct the Opp.Parties to evaluate and award marks in Question No.1 of the General English paper under Annexure-7; (ii) Direct the Opp.Parties to call the petitioner for interview/ Viva-Voce Test for Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2014; And pass any such other orders, issue such other Writs/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper; Even though the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking evaluation of his answer sheets in the Odisha Judicial Service Main Written Examination, 2014 concerning Question No.12(b) (i) to 12 (b) (v), in the Paper “Law of Property” as well as question no.1 in the General English Paper, but while prosecuting the writ petition, did not press prayer no.ii and confined his submissions only to prayer nos. i and iii to the writ petition involving Question No.12(b)(i) to (v) in paper Law of Property only. 2. Short back ground involved in the case is that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer, aspiring for the post of a Civil Jude in the Odisha Judicial Service applied against the post advertised and published by the opposite party no.2-Odisha Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No.24 of 2013-14. Petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and remained successful in the said preliminary examination. Consequently the petitioner applied for second stage of the examination, namely, Odisha Judicial Service Main Written Examination. He appeared in the examination held from 4.8.2014 to 7.8.2014. Petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination and remained successful in the said preliminary examination. Consequently the petitioner applied for second stage of the examination, namely, Odisha Judicial Service Main Written Examination. He appeared in the examination held from 4.8.2014 to 7.8.2014. Petitioner alleged that even though he has performed best and answered the questions right but unfortunately, the Examining Authority while awarding marks involving Question No.12 (b), (i), (ii) and (v), did not award any mark despite the answer being completely correct. Petitioner has specifically alleged that no marks were awarded even though answers were absolutely correct. In justifying his allegation, the petitioner has also specifically pleaded that looking to the illustrations provided by him in his pleading and referring to the test books indicated in his pleading, claimed that his answers against the above questions are most appropriate and in not awarding marks to the petitioner against these particular questions, the Examining Authority has not done justice to the petitioner. In so far as marking in respect of Question No.12 (b)(iii) and (iv) is concerned, the petitioner has alleged that even though the petitioner has given correct answer, the Examining authority instead of granting full 3 (three) marks against each of the above question, arbitrarily granted 2 (two) marks against each of the above questions. Under the aforesaid pleadings and submissions, the petitioner claimed the relief, as indicated hereinabove through his Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Mohanty. 3. Odisha Public Service Commission-opposite party no.2 while opposing the contentions and allegations raised by the petitioner, by filing a counter affidavit, submitted that recruitment to the post of Civil Judges in the Odisha Judicial Service is being regulated under the provisions contained in the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Further the papers of the examination were evaluated by experienced examiners selected in consultation with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court following Rule 20 of the aforesaid rule and since the petitioner was unable to acquire required percentage of marks, as required under Rule 24, he was not selected for viva-voce test in the said recruitment process. It is contended by the opposite party no.2 that once the answer-sheets are evaluated by eminent Examiners, rechecked by the Chief Examiners and scrutinized by the Scrutinizers, the process in the written examination gets confirmed leaving no further scope for re-evaluation or re-calculation. It is contended by the opposite party no.2 that once the answer-sheets are evaluated by eminent Examiners, rechecked by the Chief Examiners and scrutinized by the Scrutinizers, the process in the written examination gets confirmed leaving no further scope for re-evaluation or re-calculation. It is also specifically contended that there is no provision/practice for re-evaluation/re-calculation of any written examination on the request of the candidates. Under the above pleadings and submissions, Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Odisha Public Service Commission contended that there being no scope for interfering in the matter, the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. During course of hearing, Sri Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner took this Court to the question paper in relation to Law of Property appearing at Annexure-5 series of the brief and also to the answer-sheets in relation to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid paper being supplied by the O.P.S.C also appearing in Annexure-5 series to the writ petition. Referring to question paper and answer-sheet involving Question No.12(b), (i), (ii) and (v) relating to “Law of Property”, this Court observes in the answer-sheet involving Question No.12, the Examining Authority awarded no mark as against question no.12 (b) (i), 12 (b) (ii) and 12 (b) (v) and the answer paper only bears cross mark (x) as against the aforesaid answers. Looking to the question paper concerning Question No.12 of the paper” Law of Property”, this Court finds the entire question No.12 (b) of the paper “Law of Property” bears 15 marks and the Question contains 5 sub-questions, leaving no doubt that each sub-question under question No.12 was having 3 marks. Similarly, looking to the answer paper in relation to petitioner, particularly concerning Question No.12 of the paper “Law of Property”, as available at page 48 and page 49 of the brief, this Court finds while Question Nos. 12(b) (i), 12(b) (ii) and 12 (b) (v) have not been awarded any marks. Sub-question nos. (iii) & (iv) even though appears to be correct, but has been awarded with 2 marks each only as against full mark 3. 12(b) (i), 12(b) (ii) and 12 (b) (v) have not been awarded any marks. Sub-question nos. (iii) & (iv) even though appears to be correct, but has been awarded with 2 marks each only as against full mark 3. This Court observes, so far as awarding of marks in respect of Sub-question Nos.(iii) & (iv) are concerned, since these are sub-questions and only to be answered by “Yes” or “No” and further since the Examining Authority finds the answers are appropriate, these questions ought to have been awarded with full marks i.e. 3 marks against each of the sub-questions. While dealing with similar issue concerning the very same recruitment process, another Division Bench of this Court while deciding W.P.(C).No.4986 of 2015, disposed of on 02.3.2016, has noted the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Orissa Public Service Commission therein as is evinced from 9th. line of paragraph-7 of the judgment that each sub-question in question No.12 of the paper “Law of Property” bears 3 (three) marks. 5. There is no dispute that the aforesaid written examination was conducted following provisions contained in Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rules 20 and 24 of the said Rule are relevant Rules, which have a material bearing on the question that falls for determination. Consequently, the Rules are quoted as herein below: “20. Consultation with the High Court.-The Commission shall consult the Chief Justice of the High Court confidentially in the matter of appointment of examiners for law papers prescribed for the main written examination. 24. Determination of number of candidates for interview.-The Commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than forty-five per centum of marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty three per centum of marks in each paper in the main written examination. Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that the Commission shall, consult the Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointment of examiners for law papers prescribed for the main written examination confidentially. Similarly, Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules made it clear that Commission shall call the candidates for interview, who have secured certain percentage of marks in each paper in the main written examination. Similarly, Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules made it clear that Commission shall call the candidates for interview, who have secured certain percentage of marks in each paper in the main written examination. Further, both these Rules make it clear that providing marks may be the minimum ‘0’ in the main written examination instead of providing ‘x’ is the only prescription. 6. Coming back to the question where no marks have been awarded, this Court finds that in deciding similar case in the matter of Bama Sankar Mishra v. Orissa Public Service Commission & another, 1989 (II) OLR-235, a Full Bench of this Court, taking into consideration of the submission of the petitioners therein, held that “it was open to the Commission to award a very low mark in the viva voce test, say even “zero”, but the Commission had no discretion not to allot any mark at all, or for the mater of that, reject any candidate altogether who even without allotment of any mark, on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination, is qualified to be included on the Select List”. Above decision was passed taking note of a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 , particularly, keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pargraph-15 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: “The above observation is sufficient to reject the submission made on behalf of the opposite parties as unsustainable. The Expert may advise the Commission to examine the suitability of a candidate during the viva voce test with reference to his aptitude and qualities required for judicial service. It may well be that a candidate may answer the questions of general knowledge or say, Chemistry or History, very perfectly but may fumble or betray his ignorance while answering the questions put to test his suitability for judicial service. In that event, on the advice of the Experts, the Commission may even award a very low mark, say even ‘zero’ to such a candidate, but the concept of rejecting him altogether if he is found to be unfit or unsuitable cannot be accepted”. 7. In that event, on the advice of the Experts, the Commission may even award a very low mark, say even ‘zero’ to such a candidate, but the concept of rejecting him altogether if he is found to be unfit or unsuitable cannot be accepted”. 7. Looking to the provisions made in the Rules quoted hereinabove and the observation of this Court rendered in the case of Bama Sankar Mishra v. Orissa Public Service Commission & another (supra) and the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra), this Court finds the non-awarding of marks against Question Nos.12 (b) (i), (ii) and (v) runs de-horse the provisions of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007, referred to herein above. Further, in view of the observations in respect of question No.12(b)(iii)and (iv) of Paper “Law of Property”, this Court also finds giving less mark than what has been provided for, is also illegal. Such action of the Odisha Public Service Commission having affected the result of the petitioner, this Court finds no hesitation in remanding the matter to the Odisha Public Service Commission for re-evaluation of the answer paper of the petitioner, particularly, in relation to Question Nos.12(b) (i), 12 (b) (ii) and 12(b) (v) of the subject “Law of Property”, through the examiners already been appointed for the purpose in exercise of power under Rule 20 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. For the observation in respect of question No.12(b)(iii) and (iv) and taking note of direction of this Court in W.P.(C).No.4986 of 2015 decided on 02.3.2016, this Court directs the Odisha Public Service Commission to award full marks to the petitioner as against answer No.12(b)(iii) and (iv). For the observation in respect of question No.12(b)(iii) and (iv) and taking note of direction of this Court in W.P.(C).No.4986 of 2015 decided on 02.3.2016, this Court directs the Odisha Public Service Commission to award full marks to the petitioner as against answer No.12(b)(iii) and (iv). This Court also further directs the Odisha Public Service Commission that in the event of fresh evaluation if the petitioner qualifies, the Odisha Public Service Commission shall hold a special interview of the petitioner and in that event if the petitioner comes out successful in the said special interview (viva-voce), he should be given appropriate place in the final merit list of Odisha Public Service Commission Examination 2014 and should be given appointment as against vacancy of the said year and so also he be provided the benefit as decided by this Court involving 2014, Odisha Judicial Service Main Written Examination vide W.P.(C) No.3245 of 2016 on 21.6.2016 and W.P.(C).No.4986 of 2015 on 2.3.2016. The entire exercise directed to be completed by the Odisha Public Service Commission-opposite party no.2 within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. 8. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to cost.