IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof to challenge an answer key is heavy, and the benefit of doubt should go to the examining authority. A clear demonstration of error in the answer key is required for judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned standing counsel, Dibrugarh University, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 6 & 7.

2. The instant intra-Court appeal, is directed against an order, dated 19.12.2023, passed by the writ Court in WP (C) 3398/2021, dismissing the same as being devoid of merit.

3. The basic facts requisite for an adjudication of the issues arising in the present appeal, is noticed as under:

The State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam, vide an Advertisement, dated 11.04.2018, invited applications for filling-up of vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Un-Armed Branch) of Assam Police. The selection procedure as contemplated in the said advertisement, included a written test of 100 marks to be undertaken involving 100 questions and each question bearing 1 mark each. It was also provided that there will be negative marking of ½ mark for each wrong answer.

The appellant, herein, being eligible, in terms of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the Advertisement, dated 11.04.2018, submitted his application which was duly accepted. The appellant was, thereafter, issued with an Admit Card for appearing in the written test which was scheduled on 22.11.2020. As per the materials available on record, it is seen that the said component of the selection process was undertaken by the Dibrugarh University. The appellant appeared in the written test and thereafter, in the other components of the selection process. The result of the said selection process was declared on 15.02.2021. The name of the appellant, herein, who belongs to an OBC category, did not find mention in the select list so prepared by the authorities pursuant to the said process of recruitment.

It is the contention of the appellant that he scored a total 102.09 marks in the said recruitment process and the cut-off mark working-out for candidates belonging to the OBC category being disclosed as 103 marks, the appellant contends that his name was not included amongst the candidates selected for the post, in question, against the OBC category only on account of scoring 0.91 marks less.

The appellant thereafter submitted an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 17.02.2021, seeking information with regard to the written test as conducted by the Dibrugarh University in the matter. The RTI reply was provided to the appellant on 17.03.2021. On perusal of the OMR sheet as well as the answer key published in the matter; the appellant found that with regard to the Question No. 86 of the written test; although according to him, he had marked the correct answer i.e. option ‘B’ but the option as given in the answer key for the said question being option ‘A’ 0.5 mark was deducted from his total score in terms of the stipulations made in this connection in the Advertisement, dated 11.04.2018.

The appellant, thereafter, made necessary enquiries to ascertain the correct answer pertaining to the said Question No. 86 and on being satisfied that the option as opted by him against the said question to be correct and he having been denied his due marks therein; approached this Court by instituting a writ petition being WP (C) 3398/2021, inter-alia, praying for a declaration that the option as given against the Question No. 86 in the answer key to be wrong and for awarding to him, marks against the said Question No. 86, basing on his option.

The said writ petition was taken-up for final consideration by the learned single Judge and vide the order, 19.12.2023, the learned single Judge upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on examining the issues arising therein; proceeded to dismiss the same holding that the said writ petition was