JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This writ petition has been filed with following prayers: (i) why written answer papers of the writ petitioner relating to the District Judge Examination dated 10.07.2011 under direct recruitment from Bar vide Advertisement No.1/2011 shall not be re-evaluated/aggregated/checked or reassessed/re-added. (ii) why the marks secured by all examinees vide advertisement No.3/2011 shall not be displayed in the Court's website. (iii) why not the petitioner be declared "successful and selected" in respect of his qualifying in the written test and viva-voce in 2008 and 2010 taking into account the written and viva-voce marks together as per the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1993 SC 2493 , AIR 2002 SC 1752 , AIR 2008 SC 2103 and AIR 2010 SC 3714 . 2. Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that he is the "twice-written-qualified" candidate for the post in the Cadre of District Judge directly appeared from the Bar for the year 2008 having Roll No.953 and 2010 having Roll No.133. He was deprived of being selected in the year 2010 as he was found unsuccessful in viva-voce test for a margin of two marks. In the year 2008 in toto 22 numbers of candidates were qualified out of around 1500 applicants for 16 numbers of vacancies. Out of 22 numbers of written qualified candidates only 5 numbers of candidates were selected in viva-voce following cut-off marks in the viva-voce though the same was not mentioned in advertisement No.1 dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure-4). Thus, in the advertisement dated 11.04.2008 though no cut-off mark was mentioned, the same was followed in the selection process. The advertisement was also silent regarding Rules/Act/Notification etc. under which it was conducted. Subsequently, opposite party No.3-Registrar General, Orissa High Court has also increased the upper age limit of the applicants up to 48 years through a Corrigendum dated 26.04.2008 (Annexure-5). The petitioner in the year 2008 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.16313 of 2008 before this Court against the selection procedure of selecting only 5 candidates out of 22 candidates against 16 number of vacancies as that was in contravention of the case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC 2103 . The said writ petition was tagged with W.P.(C) Nos.16104 and 16134 of 2008. The said writ petition was tagged with W.P.(C) Nos.16104 and 16134 of 2008. All the writ petitions were heard together and dismissed on 03.12.2008 on the ground that the petitioner challenged the selection procedure after being unsuccessful in the test and not before and they had well knowledge about the cut-off marks prior to facing their examination. 3. The petitioner again appeared in the said examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2009. In that examination, 6 nos. of candidates out of around 650 applicants were declared qualified in written examination against 15 nos. of vacancies. Later on out of 6 candidates, 2 candidates were disqualified. In the Advertisement No.1 of 2009 (Annexure-10), there was mention of the rules under which the examination to be conducted and minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce test which were not mentioned in 2008 advertisement. 4. Petitioner again appeared in the examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2010 (Annexure-11) for the third time and qualified the written examination. This year for the first time the marks secured by various candidates in the written examination was published/displayed in the website of the Odisha High Court under Annexure-11. The petitioner prayed before the Public Information Officer under the R.T.I. Act for supplying the viva-voce mark and thereafter the mark was supplied and it was found to be 10 i.e. just 2 marks less from qualifying mark, i.e., 40% of 30 marks. The viva-voce mark sheet is annexed as Annexure-12. The petitioner has secured 56 marks in Paper-I and 50 mark in Paper-II. The aggregation of written and viva-voce is 116 mark i.e. 56+50+10 = 116 out of 100+100+30 and comes within the ratio laid down in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and another, AIR 2010 SC 3714 . According to the said decision, 50% of the aggregate of written and viva-voce test shall hold good. 5. Again the petitioner appeared in the examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2011 (Annexure-13) for the fourth time and he was expecting success in written examination because he had shown very good performance in the previous examinations. The petitioner was expecting that he will come out successful in the written examination as he had prepared and performed good in the written examination. The petitioner was expecting that he will come out successful in the written examination as he had prepared and performed good in the written examination. To utter surprise, the petitioner found that there is only one candidate i.e. opposite party No.5 whose name appeared in the success list of written qualified candidates out of around 840 for filling up of 17 nos of vacancies and opposite party No.5 was also finally selected after facing viva-voce test. The marks relating to the examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2011 was published in website of the Court on 20.12.2011 and it was found that the present petitioner had secured 45 and 47 in both papers respectively. Opposite party No.3-Registrar, General, Orissa High Court with information to opposite party No.4 has re-advertised for filling up of remaining 16 numbers of vacancies vide Advertisement No.3 of 2011 (Annexure-15) in accordance with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallick Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 and the said advertisement was communicated to opposite party Nos.2 and 4. The written examination was held on 20.11.2011 and result was declared on 17.12.2011 and it was found that only 3 candidates bearing Roll Nos.20, 58 and 61 were found successful. Suspicion cast in the mind of the petitioner as he had performed upto his optimum satisfaction and also no other candidates within Roll No.684 had qualified in the written test which needs evaluation of all answer sheets up to Roll No.684. The viva voce test was also held on 22.12.2011 and all the candidates found successful. 6. Mr. R.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the selection procedure adopted by opposite party Nos.1 and 3 following the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, "O.S.J.S. & O.J.S. Rules, 2007") is purely unfair, improper and unjust and against the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra), and Ramesh Kumar (supra). Declaration of one candidate i.e. opposite party No.5 to be successful in written examination pertaining to Advertisement No.1 of 2011 raises presumption in favour of improper/suspicion/irregular/ haphazard evaluation of written papers of the examinees including the petitioner and intended not to select but to reject candidates by adopting wrong law i.e. O.S.J.S. & O.J.S. Rules, 2007 following which a candidate securing much above the qualifying marks in written examination can be thrown illegally and against the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Shethy Commission report. Rule 47 of the O.S.J.S. & O.J.S. Rules, 2007 provides for relaxation. In spite of having a large number of vacancies for the post of District Judge under direct recruitment from the Bar and availability of sufficient number of written qualifying candidates since 2008, opposite party No.2 has not taken any decision for relaxation i.e. to prepare merit list by adding viva-voce marks to written examination for filling up the vacancy in order of merit from top to bottom. On 25.08.2011, the petitioner prior to viva-voce, 2011 had sent letter by speed post to opposite party No.1 requesting for reevaluation of his answer papers relating to 2011 examination but no action was taken to that effect. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.447 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner has been in active practice as an Advocate attached to Karanjia Bar Association, Dist: Mayurbhanj since 1996. He has qualified twice in the written examination for the post of District Judge but unfortunately for a margin of 2 marks the petitioner has been declared disqualified. 7. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no reason whatsoever to call for the answer papers for re-evaluation and there is no illegality in the process of selection to the posts of Odisha Superior Judicial Service. It is further submitted that no relief can be granted in the present writ petition in view of the prayer made. The present writ petition is filed in the year 2012 challenging the result declared in respect of the examination held in the year 2008 and 2010 to fill up the vacancy of that year. Mr. It is further submitted that no relief can be granted in the present writ petition in view of the prayer made. The present writ petition is filed in the year 2012 challenging the result declared in respect of the examination held in the year 2008 and 2010 to fill up the vacancy of that year. Mr. Mohapatra submitted for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether any relief can be granted with reference to the prayer made in the writ petition. 9. As per the averments made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the petitioner files this Writ petition following the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.447/2011 and against the selection process in respect of direct recruitment from the Bar to the Superior Judicial Service held in pursuance of advertisement No.1/2011 dated 15.04.2011. From the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in W.P. (C) No.447/2011 it appears that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Registrar (Administration), Orissa High Court to do revaluations of his answer papers of 2011 examination for recruitment to the Orissa Superior Judicial Service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition gave liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pursuant to the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. However, in the prayer while raising a question as to why the written answer papers relating to District Judge Examination dated 10.07.2011 under direct recruitment from Bar pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2011 shall not be revaluated/aggregated, checked or re-assessed/re-added, he has posed questions as to why marks secured by all the examinees pursuant to advertisement No.3/2011 shall not be displayed in the Court's website and as to why he be not declared "successful and selected" in respect of his qualifying in the written examination in 2008 and 2010 taking into account the written and viva-voce marks together. Though it is styled as prayer but in essence only the above questions have been posed. 10. So far the first question posed in the writ petition with reference to revaluation/aggregation/rechecking or reassessment is concerned, such a relief cannot be granted as there is no such provision for revaluation/rechecking etc. Though it is styled as prayer but in essence only the above questions have been posed. 10. So far the first question posed in the writ petition with reference to revaluation/aggregation/rechecking or reassessment is concerned, such a relief cannot be granted as there is no such provision for revaluation/rechecking etc. of answer papers in the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. 11. So far the second prayer is concerned, marks secured by all the examinees pertaining to Advertisement No.3/2011 have been uploaded in the High Court website on 29.05.2012. 12. Questions posed in the prayer of the writ petition relating to the examinations of 2008 and 2010 is totally out of consideration for the following reasons. Firstly, petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition has stated that challenging the selection procedure pursuant to the advertisement made in the year 2008, he filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.16313/2008 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was dismissed along with W.P.(C) Nos.16104/2008 and 16134/2008. There is no averment that the said order of this Court has been challenged in any manner or the same has been reversed. Therefore, that order attained finality. In view of the same, in the present writ petition, the petitioner also cannot challenge the selection procedure/result so far 2008 examination is concerned. Secondly, though no time limit was fixed but the writ petition has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the present writ petition no explanation has been filed as to why after lapse of four years of 2008 examination and two years of 2010 examination the result of those examinations is challenged in this writ petition. Thirdly, the present writ petition has been filed pursuant to the liberty given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order passed in writ petition bearing W.P.(Civil) No.447/2011, wherein a prayer was made for issuance of a writ of mandamus to Registrar General and Registrar (Administration) of the High Court of Orissa to do revaluation of the answer papers of the petitioner, which is not permissible under the Rules. Therefore, challenge to the result of the examination held in the years 2008 and 2010 in the present writ petition is also not permissible. 13. For the reasons stated above, we don't find any cogent reason to allow the prayer made in the writ petition. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Therefore, challenge to the result of the examination held in the years 2008 and 2010 in the present writ petition is also not permissible. 13. For the reasons stated above, we don't find any cogent reason to allow the prayer made in the writ petition. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. - I agree.