Rajashree Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajashree Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No formal relief ordered by this order: the grievance stood redressed through the Board's process under the Court's earlier order dated 13.08.2025 — another expert examiner verified the MTH answer book against the scheme of evaluation and suggested a total of 31 instead of 05 marks, and B.S.E.(O) revised the petitioner's result — whereupon the Court found the writ petition infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Opposite Parties to show cause why the petitioner should not be awarded appropriate marks for the specified subjective questions (Q. Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 3(a), 4(a), 5(a) and 5(b)) in the Part II MTH (Mathematics) SET-B question paper of the BSE Exam 2024 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Orissa, and whether the rule should be made absolute if insufficient cause is shown.

Court's answer

In view of the Additional Information Sheet dated 11.09.2025 recording verification of the discrepancies by another expert examiner against the scheme of evaluation (suggestion: total 31 instead of 05) and the revision of the petitioner's result by B.S.E.(O), the writ petition has become infructuous; the efforts of Senior Counsel Mr. Rao were appreciated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.7017 of 2025 — Rajashree Mishra v. State of Odisha and others — Dixit Krishna Shripad, J. — Order dated 12.09.2025. By a rule NISI/mandamus prayer, the petitioner sought appropriate marks for subjective questions Q. Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 3(a), 4(a), 5(a) and 5(b) in the Part II MTH (Mathematics) SET-B paper of the BSE Exam 2024 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Orissa. Pursuant to this Court's earlier order dated 13.08.2025 directing that a lawful solution be found, possibly by engaging another expert, Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Rao (for OP No.3) secured an Additional Information Sheet dated 11.09.2025 of the Secretary, B.S.E., Odisha, Cuttack: the discrepancies flagged in the photocopy of the MTH answer book (Annexure-3 series) were verified by another expert examiner against the scheme of evaluation prepared by B.S.E.(O), yielding the suggestion 'Total mark will be 31 instead of 05'. The Board noted that re-evaluation is not permissible per its regulation, but since the answers were not evaluated in consonance with the common standard scheme of evaluation the candidate should not suffer; the result was revised per the expert examiner's views, expressly not as a precedent, and the Legal Retainer was to examine the re-evaluation restrictions in the Board Regulations. Holding the grievance redressed, the Court declared the writ petition infructuous and appreciated the efforts of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rao.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.7017 of 2025

Rajashree Mishra

Petitioner

Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha and others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Advocate for OP No.3

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 04.

12.09.2025

Petitioner has structure her prayer as under:

“Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance narrated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to Why the petitioner will not be awarded appropriate mark in respect of questions in subjective papers as mentioned hereunder such as:

1. subjective papers in part II MTH (Mathematics) paper for question No 1(a), 1(b), 3(a), 4(a), 5(a) and 5(b) in SET-B question paper in the BSE Exam 2024 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Orissa, and

If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then this Hon’ble Court may make the above said rule absolute.”

Page 1 of 3

Learned Senior Counsel-Mr. Rao, on the request of the Court has played wonder in the matter and secured an Additional Information Sheet dated 11.09.2025 issued by the Secretary, B.S.E., Odisha, Cuttack, which reads as under:

“The Hon'ble High Court by order dtd 13.08.2025 have directed “to find out some solution to the grievance of the petitioner with the parameters of law may be by engaging the services of another expert to look into the certain aspects of question and answers. In fact, the case prima facie deserves such a treatment."

In view of such direction of the Hon'ble High Court the discrepancies mentioned by the petitioner in the photo copy of MTH answer book as Annexed by the petitioner to the writ petition at Annexure-3 series were verified by another expert examiner with scheme of evaluation prepared by B.S.E.(O) and the following suggestion is made by the said expert examiner;

"Total mark will be 31 instead of 05"

Re-evaluation of answer book is not permissible as per regulation of the Board. However, as the answer is not evaluated in consonance with the common standard of scheme of evaluation, the petitioner /candidate should not be allowed to suffer.

In some occasions, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the B.S.E(O) to examine the answer books with scheme of evaluation and to award mark accordingly.In compliance to such order of the Hon'ble High Court, the B.S.E(O), Odisha has also revised the result of the petitioner/candidate.

In such a situation, it may be appropriate to revise the result of the

Page 2 of 3

petitioner/ candidate as per the views offered by the expert examiner above. But this may not be construed as precedent or else it may open flood gate and the very purpose of regulation will be foisted.

Our learned Legal Retainer may examine the matter in view of the provision in Regulations of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, restricting re-evaluation and submit before the Hon'ble High Court accordingly.”

In view of the above, writ petition has become infructuous. The efforts made by learned Senior Counsel-Mr. Rao is deeply appreciated.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

Anisha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:40:02

Page 3 of 3