JUDGMENT : DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a candidate for National Rural Talent Search Examination, 2016 (for short “NRTC Examination, 2016”), files this application seeking for direction to opposite party no. 2 to award one mark in respect of question no.12. 2. The epitome of fact leading to filing of this writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner, after passing Class-VII from Mahamanab U.P. Vidyapitha, Kathiapada under Pattamundai Block, is now prosecuting his study in Class-VIII in M.N. High School, Pattamundai in the district of Kendrapara. The Board of Secondary Education, Odisha like every year conducted NRTC Examination, 2016 and syllabus for the examination according to the syllabus of Class-VII was designed by it. The petitioner, being selected to appear at the said examination, filled up the form under OBC/SEBC category. On consideration of his application, admit card was issued allotting roll number 04AC051. The petitioner appeared at the examination held on 24.09.2016 at (04AC) M.N. High School, Pattamundai. After the result was published, the petitioner was found to have secured 76 marks. After going through the marks secured by the petitioner, his father sought for the answer sheet under the Right to Information Act, which was supplied to him. On verification of such answer sheet, it was appeared that though the petitioner had answered question no.12 correctly by shading option “D” with black colour, no mark was awarded against said question, as according to model answer prepared by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha option “C” was the correct answer. As such, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 3. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that as per the text book prescribed for Class-VII by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, i.e., “SAHITYA SOURAVA”, option “D” is the correct answer to question no.12. If the authority has prescribed the syllabus for NRTC Examination, 2016 as per syllabus of Class-VII, it should not have subsequently denied the claim of the petitioner relying upon certain description made in the dictionary, which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. Mr. If the authority has prescribed the syllabus for NRTC Examination, 2016 as per syllabus of Class-VII, it should not have subsequently denied the claim of the petitioner relying upon certain description made in the dictionary, which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, referring to the counter affidavit, states that according to the model answer prepared by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha option “C” is the correct answer to question no.12 because of the reason that the same has been prescribed in the Odia dictionary “TARUNA SABDAKOSA”. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in not awarding mark against question no.12, as the answer of the petitioner does not tally with the model answer prepared by opposite party no.2. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was selected to appear at NRTC Examination, 2016. He filled up the form and pursuant to the admit card issued by the authority, he appeared at the examination. The syllabus for the examination was designed by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha-opposite party no.2 according to the syllabus of Class-VII. “SAHITYA SOURAVA” was one of the books prescribed for Class-VII students, from which question no.12 had been set. The extract of the said book annexed as Annexure-6 reveals that it was published and printed by the School and Mass Education Department of the Government of Odisha. Option “D” has been specifically mentioned under chapter “Satyara Pujari Acharaya Harihara” at page 39 of the writ application, but the model answer prescribed by opposite party no.2 indicates different answer, i.e., option “C” relying upon the Odia dictionary “TARUNA SABDAKOSA”, which is not the prescribed book as per syllabus published by opposite party no.2 for the NRTC Examination, 2016. When a syllabus has been prescribed to conduct a particular examination, the same cannot be unilaterally modified, altered or clarified by opposite party no.2 subsequently by filing counter affidavit. When a syllabus has been prescribed to conduct a particular examination, the same cannot be unilaterally modified, altered or clarified by opposite party no.2 subsequently by filing counter affidavit. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 that if a specific matter has been prescribed, by filing a subsequent counter affidavit the same cannot be clarified by the authority concerned what had transpired in their mind while filing the counter affidavit. If the syllabus is fixed and the petitioner appeared at the examination in consonance with the syllabus prescribed by subsequent filing of affidavit, the position cannot be clarified saying that the dictionary meaning of the answer to question no.12 is option “C”, according to which the model answer has been prepared. That cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that answer given by the petitioner being in consonance with the syllabus of the NRTC Examination, 2016 and as per book prescribed, the subsequent clarification given in the counter affidavit justifying the correct answer as option “C” as per the model answer cannot hold good. Thereby, the counter so filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, being contrary to its own syllabus, cannot sustain. 7. In State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, AIR 2004 SC 1794 , the apex Court held that: “Not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice – delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. “The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind.” The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected.” Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 172 ; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, (2008) 9 SCC 407 ; and Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, AIR 2010 SC 1285 . 8. Applying the above principle, as laid down by the apex Court, to the present context and also reasons assigned therein, opposite party no.2 is directed to make necessary correction in consonance with the syllabus prescribed for NRTC Examination, 2016 and re-compute the marks as due and admissible to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the above observation and direction, the writ application stands allowed. No order to cost.