The official inquiry committee that investigated 1,731 errors in Odisha school textbooks for Classes 1 to 8 found that the same resource persons were repeatedly assigned as writers, reviewers, proofreaders and final subject experts, revealed activist Pradip Pradhan on Wednesday. Pradhan obtained the probe report through an RTI application.
“Errors were particularly likely to remain undetected when the person who wrote the material was also responsible for reviewing it or approving it as the final subject expert,” the report said.
Opposition Biju Janta Dal also demanded the resignation of school and mass education minister Nityananda Gond in Odisha assembly on Wednesday over textbook errors. Chief minister Mohan Majhi called it a ‘conspiracy’ against his government.
Mistakes were identified across textbooks, including spelling mistakes, factual inaccuracies, incorrect maps, photographs and names, raising concerns about the quality of educational material supplied to schools.
In July this year, Odisha government suspended former director of State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT), Manoj Padhi, and assistant directors Pradipta Mishra, Dilip Kumar Sahu and Bharati Tudu. The suspension came following a probe led by development commissioner DK Singh which investigated the errors. Padhi was also arrested by Criminal Investigation Department (CID). SCERT is the state agency that is entrusted with preparation of school textbooks.
The committee, which investigated 1,731 errors, said the repetition of resource persons in different roles defeated the purpose of having separate layers of review. The committee found that, for a particular subject and class, resource persons had been assigned overlapping responsibilities. In some cases, a person functioned as writer and reviewer; in others as reviewer and proofreader; while some were assigned as writer, reviewer, proofreader and final subject expert.
{{/usCountry}}The committee, which investigated 1,731 errors, said the repetition of resource persons in different roles defeated the purpose of having separate layers of review. The committee found that, for a particular subject and class, resource persons had been assigned overlapping responsibilities. In some cases, a person functioned as writer and reviewer; in others as reviewer and proofreader; while some were assigned as writer, reviewer, proofreader and final subject expert.
{{/usCountry}}Among the errors are the placement of Odisha’s Niyamgiri Hills in Jharkhand, the use of the Karnataka legislative assembly building in place of the Odisha assembly, and a photograph of Hampi being identified as the Konark Sun Temple. A Class 5 EVS textbook identified Brahmapur as a district instead of Ganjam.
The committee found the time allocated for textbook development exercise for 55 textbooks was just about four months while earlier exercise following implementation of the National Curriculum Framework, 2005, happened over three academic sessions. Subject experts who had earlier been given substantially more time for final review were given only a limited period to examine manuscripts at the final stage this year.
“Total number of days spent on development of books, review, DTP of the manuscript after review, proofreading of the material after DTP and final review by the subject experts ranged from 12 to 30 days per subject in a time span of approximately four months,” the report said.
It also noted that during development of books in 2025-26 no formal orientation of writers was done for text book translation and contextualisation while during previous development of new text books, orientation of writers and experts were done for two days. Similarly, earlier subject experts were given three months’ time for final review and editing the final manuscript. While in the current case, the subject experts were given only one day review the manuscript.
The committee has recommended a four-stage proofing system covering academic content, facts and images, language and the printer’s final proof, with a signed clearance at each stage. It also proposed a final, digitally approved PDF to serve as the locked master copy, with printing permitted only from that version.
For the longer term, the committee proposed a permanent Textbook Quality Assurance Cell within SCERT, pilot testing of books in urban, rural, tribal and other representative schools, book-wise textbook development committees and performance scorecards for printers and DTP vendors.