The Supreme Court upholds a ₹1 lakh penalty on the Odisha Public Service Commission for failing to evaluate a judicial service exam answer. Learn what this means for exam integrity and future accountability in public recruitment processes.

Supreme Court Upholds ₹1 Lakh Penalty on Odisha PSC Over Exam Evaluation Lapse

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld a ₹1 lakh fine imposed on the Odisha Public Service Commission (Odisha PSC) by the Odisha High Court for negligence in evaluating a judicial services exam paper. The case stemmed from the Odisha Judicial Service Examination 2022, where a candidate’s response to a 12.5-mark question went unchecked.

Background of the Judicial Services Exam Dispute

The controversy began when a young law graduate, aspiring to become a judicial officer, discovered that one of the answers in their exam script had not been evaluated. Despite this glaring error, the Odisha PSC submitted the answer sheet as complete. The candidate then petitioned the Odisha High Court, which ruled in their favor and imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on the Commission.

Supreme Court Bench Supports High Court’s Decision

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi reviewed the Commission’s appeal. The Court decided not to interfere with the High Court’s ruling, noting that the decision was made in light of the specific facts of the case and should not be treated as a binding precedent for similar situations in the future.

PSC’s Appeal Dismissed Amid Accountability Concerns

The Odisha PSC contended that the answer sheet had been properly assessed and requested the removal of adverse comments made by the High Court. However, Justice Surya Kant firmly questioned the Commission’s unwillingness to accept responsibility, asking, “How will the younger generation believe and trust you?” He criticized their defensive stance and stressed the importance of candidly admitting mistakes when they occur.

Commission’s Responsibility Stressed by the Supreme Court

Justice Dipankar Datta highlighted that even if examiners are outsourced, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Commission. He emphasized that three colleges unanimously confirmed the question (5a) was not evaluated. According to the Court, the ₹1 lakh fine was a minimal cost that should serve as a deterrent and promote vigilance in the Commission’s future assessment procedures.

High Court’s Fine Seen as a Wake-Up Call

The Supreme Court noted that if similar errors recur, the Commission could consider recovering penalties from the individual examiners involved. However, it stood by the High Court’s ruling, viewing the judgment as a necessary alert to improve diligence and prevent administrative negligence in public service examinations.

Conclusion: A Message of Accountability for Public Commissions

This ruling sends a clear message to all public service commissions in India: rigorous standards and transparency in evaluations are non-negotiable. In highly competitive and consequential exams like the judicial services examination, even minor mistakes can have lasting impacts on candidates’ futures.

The Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the ₹1 lakh penalty reflects its commitment to justice and institutional accountability. It affirms the rights of candidates to fair and error-free assessments while reinforcing the obligation of bodies like the Odisha Public Service Commission to maintain the highest levels of integrity and transparency in public recruitment.