Courts should be cautious in interfering with the evaluation process and expert opinion, especially after a significant period has passed.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition was originally filed and registered as O.A. No. 3110(C) of 2013 on the File of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Petition has been transferred to this Court for being decided under the provision of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Writ Petition involves the following relief claimed:

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Original Application may be allowed:

(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the selection process and the consequential Select List prepared for the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise.

(b) This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to prepare the select list afresh by suitably correcting the total marks of the applicant as 197 and accordingly issue a revised recommendation in favour of the applicant for being appointed as Sub- Inspector of Excise and issue appointment order in favour of the applicant and the consequential service and financial benefits retrospective from the date of appointment of Respondent No. 5 who has secured total 196 marks has already been appointed.....”

3. Short background involving the case is that being a Graduate and belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, the Petitioner finding himself unemployed came across an advertisement, vide Notification No. 1329 dated 31.5.2011 published by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of total 30 posts of Sub-Inspector of Excise under the Excise Commissioner in the Oriya Daily, “The Samaj.” The advertisement involved showing the vacancy position category-wise by way of bringing in vacancy to fifty posts through Corrigendum dated 1.10.2011. The Petitioner satisfying the eligibility criteria applied against the advertisement. Considering him for meeting with the advertisement requirement, the Petitioner was directed to appear in the written test scheduled to be held on 15.1.2012. The Petitioner claims to have cleared the written test and thus declared qualified to appear the physical test on 14.3.2012 by virtue of intimation dated 25.2.2012. The Petitioner was assigned with Roll No. 19111700856. The Petitioner claiming to have been successful in the physical test was allowed to appear the viva voce test meant for the Scheduled Caste Category. Advertisement indicated five posts were earmarked for Scheduled Caste Category. After the whole process is over, select list for the post of Sub- Inspector of Excise was prepared on 22.3.2012. The Petitioner got shocked in not finding his name in the select list of 50 persons finds place in Annexure-3. The Petitioner thus applied for the marks secured by him as well as the cut off mark involved therein. In Paragraph-6.6 of the Petition, the Petitioner claimed, he has been provided with all such information applying the provision of the Right to Information Act. In Paragraph-6.7 thereof the Petitioner claimed, he fell short by two marks. The Petitioner at this stage applied for photocopies of the questions and the OMR Answer Sheet involving General Study Paper of that particular Examination. Simultaneously, the Petitioner also applied for supply of photocopy of the General Studies Answer Key of the Set Code-6 relating to the Sub-Inspector of Excise Examination, 2011. For not getting any information on his R.T.I. Application, the Petitioner filed an Appeal. Finally the Petitioner was supplied with questions of General Studies with Set Code-6 OMR Answer Sheet and the answer key of General Studies with Set Code-6 respectively. After coming to possess the above on evaluation of his answer sheet with the OMR Answer Sheet and the marking as well, the Petitioner found as against question nos. 58, 71, 84 and 88, there has been wrong answer keys by the Authority. The Petitioner also claimed to have found in spite of his giving correct answer but for feeding of wrong answers by the Authority, the Petitioner’s ans