ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.4.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 1695 of 2015, the writ petitioner-appellant has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal. The writ petitioner appeared in the written examination which was conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short ‘JPSC’) for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 2. The writ petitioner-appellant, who is a B.C.-I Candidate, appeared in the main examination in the year 2014, pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2013. He was allotted Roll No. 41321098. The written examination consists of four papers, which are as follows:- 01 - Law-I 02 Law-II 03 - Law-III 04 - Hindi and English. 3. The dispute arose in respect of Paper Law-III. The result of the said examination was published and the appellant was declared unsuccessful having obtained 190 marks out of 400 in written examination and 44 marks out of 100 in viva voice, thus totaling to 234 marks out of 500. As per the appellant, the cut off marks in the category of the appellant i.e. B.C.-I was 239 and the marks of the appellant was short only by 05 marks. The appellant applied for inspection of the answer-sheet under the Right to Information Act and he was allowed to inspect the answer-sheet. From inspecting the answer-sheet, the appellant could come to know that Question-9 of Section E, of Paper No. III was not evaluated by the examiner, as the examiner had given a remark ‘extra’. The appellant filed a representation on 07.04.2015 before respondent No. 2-the Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, but no action was taken. Having no other alternative, the writ petitioner-appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 22.4.2015, praying therein for a direction to check and evaluate Section-E of Paper–III Law of Jharkhand Judicial Service and Civil Judge (Junior Division) Main Examination, 2014. 4. Having no other alternative, the writ petitioner-appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 22.4.2015, praying therein for a direction to check and evaluate Section-E of Paper–III Law of Jharkhand Judicial Service and Civil Judge (Junior Division) Main Examination, 2014. 4. The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court and by judgment dated 24.04.2015, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the same on the ground of delay in approaching this Court and also on the ground that the Court cannot ascertain as to why the examiner has not evaluated Question No. 9 of Section E. The learned Single Judge has held that if a direction is issued to evaluate/check the said question of Paper No. 03-Law, the entire process will be stopped. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission and perused the record. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have committed grave illegality by not evaluating Question No. 9 of Section E of Paper-03 Law. He further submits that the examiner has treated Question No. 9 of Section E as an ‘extra’ answer which, in fact, cannot be treated to be an extra answer in view of the instruction given in the question paper. As per the appellant, one question of Section E had to be answered by the appellant as the same was compulsory one and since the appellant has answered Question No. 9 from Section E, the same should have been evaluated by the examiner and the same could not have been termed as ‘extra’. 7. The counsel appearing for the JPSC submits that as per the direction given in the question paper, candidates have to answer five questions but the appellant has answered six questions, so the last question, which is Question No. 9 of Section-E naturally became an extra question, which as per the instruction, was not to be evaluated. He further submits that since the appellant has answered an extra question and has not followed the instruction, his entire answer-sheet should have been scrapped. He further submits that there is no glaring illegality committed by the respondent authorities, which needs interference. He further submits that since the appellant has answered an extra question and has not followed the instruction, his entire answer-sheet should have been scrapped. He further submits that there is no glaring illegality committed by the respondent authorities, which needs interference. He also submits that it is necessary to evaluate five questions, which have been evaluated and as per direction 6th answer is an extra one which was rightly not evaluated. He lastly submits that this LPA is liable to be dismissed. 8. On this back-ground, it is to be seen whether Question No. 9 of Section-E of Paper-03 (Law) so far as it relates to the appellant needs to be evaluated or not and whether the said answer is an “extra” one or not. 9. To decide this issue, it is important to refer to the instruction given in the question paper. There is a note on the top of paper III Law for candidates. The note is both in Hindi and in English. It is necessary to quote the said note here-in-below:- “Candidates are required to answer five questions selecting compulsorily one question from each Section. vH;FkhZx.k dqy ikWp iz’uksa ds mRrj nsaA izR;sd [k.M ls ,d iz’u dk mRrj nsuk vfuok;Z gSA^^ 10. Form perusal of the said note/instruction, it is quite clear that a candidate has to answer five questions selecting one question compulsorily from each Section. The entire question paper is divided in five Sections and pattern of the questions is as follows:- Section-A: Question Nos. 1(a)(b) and 2(a)(b) Section-B: Question Nos. 3(a)(b) and 4(a)(b) Section-C: Question Nos. 5 and 6(a)(b) Section-D: Question Nos. 7(a)(b) and 8 Section-E: Question Nos. 9(a)(b) and 10(a)(b) Thus, a candidate has to answer compulsorily one question from each section. 11. The answer-book of the appellant has been produced by the JPSC before this Court and from perusal of the same, it is undisputed that the appellant has answered the following questions:- Section-A: Question No. 1(a)(b) Section-B: Question No. 3(b) and 4(b) Section-C: Question No. 6(a)(b) Section-D: Question No. 7(a) and 7(b) Section-E: Question Nos. 9(a) and 9(b) 12. 11. The answer-book of the appellant has been produced by the JPSC before this Court and from perusal of the same, it is undisputed that the appellant has answered the following questions:- Section-A: Question No. 1(a)(b) Section-B: Question No. 3(b) and 4(b) Section-C: Question No. 6(a)(b) Section-D: Question No. 7(a) and 7(b) Section-E: Question Nos. 9(a) and 9(b) 12. The appellant has answered one question each form Sections-A, C, D and E and two questions from Section –B. The examiner evaluated the first five questions and did not evaluate sixth question, which was from section E treating it to be an “Extra” on the ground that as per the instruction, a candidate had to answer only five questions. 13. Counsel for the JPSC agreed that since an extra question has been answered, the entire answer-sheet should have been scrapped. The counsel for the JPSC has handed over to this Court a set of instructions, which was circulated amongst the examiners, which is also a guideline as to how the answer-sheet has to be evaluated. The said guideline nowhere suggests that if an extra question is answered, the entire answer-sheet will be scrapped. The guideline only suggests that the extra question should not be evaluated and should be crossed out. Thus the contention of the counsel for the JPSC that the entire answer-sheet of the appellant should have been scrapped because he has answered extra questions, cannot be accepted, and has no force. 14. Now the question is as to whether the answer of Question No. 9 of Section E is the extra answer or not. If no, then what is the extra answer, which should not have been evaluated by the examiner. 15. As per instruction given in the question paper, answering one question from each of the Section was compulsory by a candidate. Thus one answer from each of the Section being compulsory, any answer over and above of the same from any of the Section is an 'extra answer'. The instruction in the answer-book is crystal clear. The instruction to the effect is that a candidate has to answer five questions and one question from each Section is compulsory. There are five Sections in the entire question paper and one question from each Section must be answered. The instruction in the answer-book is crystal clear. The instruction to the effect is that a candidate has to answer five questions and one question from each Section is compulsory. There are five Sections in the entire question paper and one question from each Section must be answered. If a candidate answers two questions from a particular Section then answer of the second Question of that particular Section is an ‘Extra’ answer. In the instant case as held early, the appellant has answered two questions form Section-B when only one question was to be compulsorily answered. 16. Thus from the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that second answer of Section-B i.e. Answer to Question No. 4(b) is the 'extra answer'. Since one question had to be compulsorily answered from Section-E, and the appellant has answered question No. 9, it is wrong on the part of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to conclude that the last answer of the answer-sheet i.e. answer to Question No. 9 is “extra”. Thus we hold that answer to Question No. 9 is not an 'extra answer' and thus it needs to be evaluated. 17. We, thus, direct the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to evaluate the answer to Question No. 9 and strike out the answer to Question No. 4(b). We further direct the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to re-calculate the marks of the appellant, after evaluating Question No. 9 and leave out the answer of Question No. 4(b) and publish the result of the appellant. If the marks of the appellant is equal to or more than the cut off marks, obtained by the last selected candidate in his category, the appellant will also be accommodated against the vacancy, if exists, for the post, to which, the appellant has applied for. It is also made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. We also find that there was no delay in filing this writ petition as the writ-petitioner perused the answer-sheet only on 25.3.2015 and he filed the writ petition on 22.4.2015, which is less than a month. This delay cannot be said to be fatal for the petitioner. 19. With these observations and directions, this appeal stands allowed.