NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. YS Mannan, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. N Goswami, the learned State counsel for all the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case may be noticed at the outset.

3. An advertisement was published by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department (respondent No.3) on 20.08.2008, inviting eligible candidates for filling up 145 numbers of posts through direct recruitment in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs. The petitioner responded to the same and he was called for a written test which was held on 28.12.2008. Having cleared the written test, he was called for an interview on 31.08.2009. Be it stated herein that as per scheme of the selection, 150 marks was allotted for the written test while 50 marks was allotted for the interview and thus, the total marks was 200 marks.

4. After the selection process was over, the result was published by the respondent authorities in a local daily on 21.06.2012. As per the declared results, as many as 130 candidates were selected for the posts in question. As for the petitioner, his name did not figure amongst those who were selected. Being highly dissatisfied, he sought for information from the respondent No.2 by submitting an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 25.05.2012. However, respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 07.06.2012 informed the petitioner that as the matter was sub-judiced before the High Court, no information as was sought for could be given. Thereafter, against another RTI Application submitted by the petitioner, he was provided with his answer scripts and the petitioner on examining the same, found that as many as 11(eleven) questions which he correctly answered had been marked as wrong answers and therefore, no marks were allotted to him for the 11(eleven) answers which otherwise carried (half) marks each. With such discovery, the petitioner submitted an application to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department on 12.01.2015, requesting for a review of answer scripts.

5. Despite his application, the respondents did not take any action and therefore, the petitioner submitted another application through RTI requesting for the marks given to him in the written examination as well as in the viva-voce. Accordingly, vide communication dated 24.05.2016, he was informed about his marks which was 111 marks in the written examination and 11 marks in the viva voce. Thus, the petitioner scored total 122 marks in all. In the meantime, the petitioner again submitted a representation before the respondent No.3 for re-examination/re-scrutinization of his answer scripts by an independent expert examiner as he came to learn that this Court on 16.05.2016 in WP(C) No.2220 of 2016 had directed the answer scripts of the petitioner therein to be examined by an independent expert examiner. That upon such examination, it was found that the answers given were correct and they were erroneously marked as wrong answers. The writ petition was thus allowed with consequential benefits. Likewise, in the present case, the petitioner contends that he is similarly placed and therefore a similar direction may be given to the respondents.

6. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. YS Mannan, the learned counsel submits that as per the information given to the petitioner through the application made by him under the RTI, the petitioner scored a total 122 marks and the last candidate who was selected from the general category obtained 126.5 marks. Therefore, eleven answers which were marked as incorrect answers if properly examined and evaluated, the petitioner will surely get more marks than the last selected candidate. He submits that similar was the case in WP (C) No. 2220 of 2016 where it was found that the petitioner who belonged to an OBC category, upon re-evaluation of the answers by an independent examiner, was