The Answer Key for a selection test is presumed correct unless clearly demonstrated to be wrong, and without such proof, courts will not interfere with selection outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Koyang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. The challenge presented by the petitioner in the present proceeding is to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) effected vide order, dated 29.08.2017, in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Lohit District, Tezu.

3. Brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present petition is noticed as under:

(i). The respondent No. 2 had issued an advertisement, dated 05.05.2016, inviting application from eligible candidates, amongst others, for recruitment against 11 (eleven) posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), lying vacant in his establishment. The petitioner, the respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 and other eligible candidates submitted their respective candidature in pursuance to the said advertisement. The petitioner and other candidates applying in pursuance to the said advertisement were required to appear in a written test consisting of 3 (three) subjects i.e., English, General Knowledge and Computer. Each of the subjects carried a total of 100 (hundred) marks. The written examination, accordingly, consisted of 300 (three hundred) marks and the viva component thereof, was to consist of 40 (forty) marks.

(ii). The petitioner, the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4, successfully cleared the written examination and thereafter, also cleared the Computer Skill Test. The results of the said selection process was, thereafter, published vide notification dated 02.01.2017. In the said Select-list against the post of LDC, the respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 1, while the respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 2. The petitioner, herein, was placed in the Waiting List. It is to be noted that out of the 11 (Eleven) posts so advertised, vide the advertisement, dated 05.05.2016, 2 (two) posts were kept reserved for candidates outside the District. The petitioner, the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4, had participated in the said selection against the said 2 (two) posts so kept reserved.

(iii). The petitioner has projected in the writ petition that she had taken recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to receive information with regard to her performance in the selection process as well as the performance of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. The petitioner on being furnished with the answer scripts of the written examination of herself as well as, that of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, found that against questions for which she had marked the correct answers, the same was marked wrong by the examiner and she was not given any marks, while the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for the same answers opted were awarded marks. The petitioner summits that in the event the petitioner was given marks for the questions for which she had opted the correct answer, her marks would have increased and, accordingly, she would have been placed above the respondent No. 3, in the final select list, prepared mandating her appointment against the post of LDC.

(iv). It is to be noted that in the selection process, the respondent No. 4 had scored 258 marks, while the respondent No. 3 had scored 253½, and the petitioner had scored