Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 69 (ORI)

Siona Sidhharth Moharana v. State of Odisha

2018-01-12

B.K.NAYAK, D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2018
JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The present petition is filed to review the judgment dated 10.5.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8004 of 2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for review of the judgment passed by this Court on the ground that the Court inadvertently has not considered the moderation theory as expounded by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjaya Singh & another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others; (2007) 3 SCC 720 and the decision in the case of Sujasha Mukherji v. Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta through Registrar and others; (2015) 11 SCC 395 with proper prospective. According to him, the petitioner is a brilliant student having secured very good marks in the Procedural Law but due to cryptic Scheme of Evaluation prepared by the Opposite Party-OPSC, secured less marks in English paper resulting her career damaged. He submitted that the Court have not evaluated the fact of the case properly and she became the victim of “hawk-dove effect” when compared with her co-examinees. Since there is apparent error in the judgment in question passed by this Court by not considering the theory of “moderation” where petitioner could have been evaluated in better way to pass the English subject so as to qualify her to face the interview, the judgment requires review. 3. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that had the Court taken into consideration the judgment passed in Sanjaya Singh and Sujasha Mukherji (supra), the petitioner could have addressed her right well on further evaluation of the answer sheets pertaining to English paper. In similar manner, this Court has passed judgment in Prajna Lalit Mishra v. O.P.S.C. and others; 122 (2016) CLT 596 and gave direction for her appointment in accordance with law. 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party-OPSC submitted that the judgment passed by this Court have considered all aspects including the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjaya Singh and Sujasha Mukherji (supra) and came to a conclusion that the petitioner has no case. 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party-OPSC submitted that the judgment passed by this Court have considered all aspects including the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjaya Singh and Sujasha Mukherji (supra) and came to a conclusion that the petitioner has no case. According to him, the law settled in Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others; (2004) 6 SCC 714 states that the Court cannot make revaluation of the marks, however, the chance of revaluation has been given in this case and the petitioner could not fetch good marks but got less marks than the marks secured. On the other hand, there is no error apparent on the face of record to allow the petition for review of the judgment in question. 5. Considering the submissions of the respective counsels and after going through the relevant judgment, it appears that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties have been taken into consideration. It is true that an interim order was passed on 27.7.2016 that the Scheme of Evaluation in English paper was cryptic and the petitioner was allowed to get the paper evaluated again by any Chief Examiner other than the Chief Examiner appointed by the OPSC and accordingly it has been revaluated. But the petitioner secured only 32 marks. That interim order has been merged with the final order passed in the judgment. That order has not been challenged by either of the parties. Since the interim order has been merged with the final order, the final order cannot be challenged taking cue from the interim order in this review petition. 6. The judgments of Sanjaya Singh and Sujasha Mukherji (supra) have been taken into consideration and found the fact of this case do not come under the principle decided in those cases for which they are not made applicable. As there is no error apparent on the face of record requiring revisit of the judgment and the decision of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) holds the field for not allowing revaluation of the papers, such judgment cannot be said to have affected the right of the petitioner. As there is no error apparent on the face of record requiring revisit of the judgment and the decision of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) holds the field for not allowing revaluation of the papers, such judgment cannot be said to have affected the right of the petitioner. Since the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have already only been repeated in the review petition and the contentions have been already well dealt in the judgment, there is no any purpose of reviewing the judgment which ultimately has attained finality. Hence, the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. B.K. Nayak, J. : I agree.