JUDGMENT : Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by his non-selection as Under Secretary in the Junior Grade of the Sikkim State Civil Service for which written examinations were held in the month of July, 2017, viva-voce examination held in November, 2017 and result published in the month of December, 2017, the Petitioner is before this Court. 2. The facts pertaining to the matter were detailed by this Court in the Order dated 05-02-2021, nevertheless, for clarity in the matter they are being reiterated herein. 3(i). The Petitioner’s case, briefly is that, on 02-02-2017 the Respondent No.2, Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC), issued an advertisement inviting application from eligible local candidates for filling up 12 (twelve) posts in the Junior Grade of Sikkim State Civil Service through direct recruitment. The Petitioner as an eligible OBC (State List) candidate appeared for and was successful in the preliminary examination, consequently he took the main examinations with General English, General Knowledge, Public Administration & Management and Indian History as his subjects. The Public Administration & Management examination comprised of two papers of 150 marks each, i.e., a total of 300 marks. Similarly, Indian History also comprised of two papers with a total of 300 marks being 150 marks each in each paper. Part I of both the aforementioned subjects comprised of Objective/Multiple Choice Question (MCQ), while Paper II was Subjective/Conventional paper. For the MCQ papers each correct answer carried 2 marks while an incorrect answer was negatively mark by deducting 0.66 marks. The Petitioner was successful in the written examinations and shortlisted for the viva-voce examination but eventually was not selected for the advertised posts. (ii) Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an application on 08-01-2018 before the Respondent No.2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) seeking the merit list of selected candidates. The required information was furnished to him on 24-01-2018. By a second RTI application dated 02-02-2018 the Petitioner sought information on marks obtained by all candidates in the viva-voce examination, copies of all the subject papers, answer keys and Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets of objective papers, which were made available to him on 15-05-2018. Thereafter, he examined whether the answer keys provided by Respondent No.2 were correct. By a second RTI application dated 02-02-2018 the Petitioner sought information on marks obtained by all candidates in the viva-voce examination, copies of all the subject papers, answer keys and Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets of objective papers, which were made available to him on 15-05-2018. Thereafter, he examined whether the answer keys provided by Respondent No.2 were correct. (iii) In the meantime, on 18-04-2018 the Petitioner filed WP(C) No.12 of 2018 before this Court challenging the selection of the Respondent No.4 (herein) in the OBC (State List) category for the advertised posts as he fell in the creamy layer. The Writ Petition was withdrawn on 14-10-2020 by the Petitioner as Respondent No.4 resigned from the post. The Respondent No.4 also came to be deleted from the array of Respondents vide Order of this Court dated 26-08-2020 in I.A. No.02 of 2019 in the instant Writ Petition. (iv) The Petitioner on searching for the correct answer keys found that the Respondent No.2 had provided wrong answer keys to 6 (six) questions of Public Administration & Management paper and 3 (three) questions in the Indian History, while one wrong question had been set in the Indian History paper and one question repeated. He avers that in the light of these errors, 11 (eleven) of his answers which were correct have been marked as incorrect thereby depriving him of 28.66 marks in the main(s) written examination. On 09-08-2018, the Petitioner filed an application before the Respondent No.2 for re-evaluation of the objective type questions while also raising concerns about the modifications made in the merit list of candidates wherein earlier he had ranked above the Respondent No.5 herein, but subsequently was ranked below him by the Respondent No.2 sans opportunity of being heard in the matter. The Respondent No.2 informed him on 27-08-2018 that the matter had been verified by the subject Experts and the answers keys were found to be correct, hence there would be no changes thereafter. The Petitioner on 01-09-2018 against the reply of the Respondent No.2 reiterated the 11 (eleven) errors made by the Respondent No.2 and prayed for proper re-evaluation of his papers, but to no avail. Another application filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 seeking a stay for any further action with regard to the revised OBC (State List) candidates was also stonewalled. Another application filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 seeking a stay for any further action with regard to the revised OBC (State List) candidates was also stonewalled. His averment is that he should be extended the same opportunity by the Respondent No.2 as afforded to one Dipendra Adhikari, Respondent No.5 herein [Petitioner in WP(C) No.27 of 2018], who had applied for re-evaluation of 10 (ten) of his answers in the Philosophy paper (objective type), upon which the Respondent No.2 had awarded him 4 (four) extra marks and placed him higher in order of merit than the Petitioner, who earlier had ranked above the Respondent No.5. (v) The Petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the Respondent Authorities to establish a fair and competent Committee of Experts to examine the official answer keys for the subjects of Public Administration & Management and Indian History and thereafter evaluation of the Petitioner’s papers by the Committee constituted. He also seeks a direction to the Respondent No.2 to quash the modified statement in order of merit of candidates selected for the post of Under Secretary and modified original statement of marks obtained by the candidates of OBC (State List) category in the main(s) written examination and viva-voce examination and to prepare fresh statement in order of merit of candidates selected for viva-voce examination for the post of Under Secretary and original statement of marks obtained by the candidates OBC (State List) category in main(s) written examination and viva-voce examination. A direction to the Respondent No.2 to appoint the Petitioner in the post of Under Secretary as per seniority, consequent upon the new rank attained by the Petitioner. 4. The Respondent No.2 in Counter-Affidavit inter alia submitted that the Petitioner seeks re-evaluation of his answer scripts which is not permissible under the rules or the law and on this ground the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Besides, the issue raised by the Petitioner has been examined by the subject Experts and the allegations found to be wrong and mis-conceived. That, the answer papers of the Respondent No.5 was not re-evaluated, but only re-verified. 5. Respondent No.3 in its Counter-Affidavit averred that for want of knowledge, the facts as set out by the Petitioner was not being responded to, while Respondent No.1 adopted the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3. 6. That, the answer papers of the Respondent No.5 was not re-evaluated, but only re-verified. 5. Respondent No.3 in its Counter-Affidavit averred that for want of knowledge, the facts as set out by the Petitioner was not being responded to, while Respondent No.1 adopted the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3. 6. The Respondent No.5 disputing the averments of the Petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit stated that he had appeared in the examination for the paper in Philosophy. On being dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, he verified the correctness of the answer keys and on finding inconsistencies in them sought verification by the Respondent No.2. On typographical errors being detected in the questions by Respondent No.2 grace marks were given to the candidates who took the Philosophy paper. 7. The Petitioner filed his Rejoinder to the Counter-Affidavits denying their averments. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner while advancing his arguments before this Court on 01-12-2020 submitted that although the Respondent No.2 has stated that re-evaluation is barred by rules and law, the relevant provisions were not furnished for perusal of this Court. That, contrary to the submission of Respondent No.2 Rule 38(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Sikkim Public Service Commission provides for such re-evaluation. That, the Respondent No.5, also an OBC (State List) candidate had filed WP(C) No.27 of 2018 having applied for re-evaluation of 10 (ten) of his answers in the Philosophy paper to the Respondent No.2. His request was acceded to by Respondent No.2 thereby awarding him extra marks and the Writ Petition (supra) came to be withdrawn on 05-11-2019. That, the Petitioner herein had also filed WP(C) No.12 of 2018 (challenging the selection of Respondent No.4 herein) wherein the Respondent No.2 herein was arrayed as Respondent No.3. In the said Writ Petition, the Respondent No.2 filed a modified statement in order of merit of candidates selected for viva-voce examination for the post of Under Secretary along with modified original statement of marks obtained by the candidates of OBC (State List) category in main(s) written examinations and viva-voce respectively. In the modified statement the Petitioner was ranked below the Respondent No.5, whereas, in the original statement of marks the Petitioner had ranked above the Respondent No.5. That, such modifications in the statement of marks was made with no opportunity given to the Petitioner to place his submissions before Respondent No.2. In the modified statement the Petitioner was ranked below the Respondent No.5, whereas, in the original statement of marks the Petitioner had ranked above the Respondent No.5. That, such modifications in the statement of marks was made with no opportunity given to the Petitioner to place his submissions before Respondent No.2. That, the opportunity afforded to the Respondent No.5 with regard to re-evaluation ought to be also extended to the Petitioner both being similarly situated, although the re-evaluation for the Respondent No.5 was disguised as re-verification by Respondent No.2. That, consequent upon the exercise, the marks of the Respondent No.5 increased by 4 (four) marks, viz., from 525.1 to 529.1. The Respondent No.2 also failed to give any proof that the answer keys to the objected questions raised by the Petitioner had been shown to Experts and merely responded tersely that it had been done. It is contended that the same Experts who set the question papers cannot be asked to verify the answer keys as it would be in the nature of things for them to deny any error and hence, new Experts ought to be requested to make such verification. That, had the Petitioner not been deprived of 28.66 marks on account of the wrong answer keys he would have ranked first in the merit list of OBC (State List) candidates and been eligible for selection as Under Secretary. To fortify his submissions, Learned Counsel placed reliance on Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and Another vs. Rahul Singh and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 ; Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 and Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Others vs. Arun Kumar and Others, (2020) 6 SCC 362 . Hence, the prayers as enumerated in the Writ Petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 while vehemently denying and disputing the allegations firstly would invite the attention of this Court to the ration in Pranav Verma and Others vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Another, (2019) SCC OnLine 1610 and contended that the Court should not order a re-evaluation. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 while vehemently denying and disputing the allegations firstly would invite the attention of this Court to the ration in Pranav Verma and Others vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and Another, (2019) SCC OnLine 1610 and contended that the Court should not order a re-evaluation. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Court itself cannot look into the correctness of the answers as was held in Kanpur University through Vice-Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 . That, this Judgment has been consistently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters such as the present dispute till 2020. Reliance was also placed on Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 . That, while examining whether the Petitioner has a right to re-evaluation, this Court is to consider that although the Respondent No.2 had informed him that his concerns had been raised before the Expert and no error had been found in the answer keys, he did not challenge the response but chose to accept it. That, the instant Petition is merely a chance Petition undeserving of any consideration while placing the ratio in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) Learned Senior Counsel canvassed the contention that the scope of judicial review in such matters has been elucidated therein. That, in view of the submissions put forth, the Petition deserves a dismissal. 10. Learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents No.1 and 3 contended that in fact no vacancy exists presently for the post for which the Petitioner is agitating his case. That, although Respondent No.4 has resigned from his post, once appointments have been made to a post and the person concerned resigns, then the post is deemed to have been utilized. In such a circumstance either the post is required to be re-advertised or the appointment has to be quashed upon which a vacancy will arise, both having not been done, the Petitioner cannot claim appointment in the post which Respondent No.4 tendered his resignation. Besides, the Court is to examine whether the right of the Petitioner is substantive right or only procedural right and the Writ Petition merits no consideration in view of the aforestated circumstances. 11. Besides, the Court is to examine whether the right of the Petitioner is substantive right or only procedural right and the Writ Petition merits no consideration in view of the aforestated circumstances. 11. The rival submissions put forth by the Learned Counsel were heard in extenso, the pleadings, documents and citations made at the Bar carefully perused. 12. On 05-02-2021, this Court vide an Order of the same date, issued the following directions to the Respondent No.2; “11. ............................................................ (i) The Respondent No.2 shall appoint an Expert Committee consisting of 3 (three) Experts in the subject of Indian History and Public Administration & Management as Members to determine whether the allegations of the Petitioner are justified; (ii) To rule out any further grievances of the Petitioner, the Committee is to comprise of Experts excluding the examiners who set the relevant question papers; (iii) The Committee shall also exclude Experts who corrected the answer scripts of the Petitioner; (iv) The Expert Committee shall examine as to whether the answers to the questions raised by the Petitioner detailed hereinbelow are correct or otherwise (v) The Expert Committee shall be appointed within a period of two weeks from today, i.e., on or before 19-02-2021. (vi) The Expert Committee shall submit its report in a sealed cover to this Court within a period of two weeks, i.e., on 05-03-2021, from the date on which the Committee is formed. 12. The questions which the Petitioner has raised concerns about and require examination by the Expert Committee are as follows; A. Public Administration & Management Sl. No. Questions with four options 1. 12. The word gotra is mentioned for the first time in  a. Atharva Veda    b. Rig Veda   c. Yajur Veda   d. Sama Veda  Answer by Respondent No.2                 – (a) Correct answer as per Petitioner     – (b) 2. 28. Who among the following Englishmen was the first to visit the court of Jahangir? a. George Barlow    b. Thomas Roe   c. Hawkins   d. William Edwards  Answer by Respondent No.2                 – (b) Correct answer as per Petitioner     – (c) 3. 50. Who was the immediate successor of Ranjit Singh? a. Dalip Singh    b. Gulab Singh   c. Teja Singh   d. Kharak Singh  Answer by Respondent No.2                 – (a) Correct answer as per Petitioner     – (d) Sl. No. Questions with four options 1. 54. 50. Who was the immediate successor of Ranjit Singh? a. Dalip Singh    b. Gulab Singh   c. Teja Singh   d. Kharak Singh  Answer by Respondent No.2                 – (a) Correct answer as per Petitioner     – (d) Sl. No. Questions with four options 1. 54. The Archaeological Survey of India was established during the period of   a. William Bentick    b. Lord Curzon   c. Warren Hasting   d. Lord Ripon  Answer by Respondent No.2             – (b) Correct answer as per Petitioner  – None of the above Sl. No. Questions with four options 1. 14. The ‘Harappan Civilisation’ was named after the Indus site of Harrapa by  a) Dr. Sankhalia    b) Dr. S. R. Rao   c) Sir MEM Wheeler   d) Sir John Marshall   Answer by Respondent No.2                  – (d)  Correct answer as per Petitioner       - (d) 2. 15. The ‘Harappan Civilisation’ was named after the Indus site of Harrapa by  a) Dr. Sankhalia    b) Dr. S. R. Rao   c) Sir MEM Wheeler   d) Sir John Marshall   Answer by Respondent No.2                 – (d) Correct answer as per Petitioner     – (d) 13. .......................” 13. In compliance to the Order of this Court, the Respondent No.2 submitted the report of the Expert Committee on 05-03-2021 in sealed cover which was opened by the Court on 09-03-2021 and the responses as found correct by the Expert Committee read over to the parties present. The Respondent No.2 vide its Counter-Affidavit dated 08-03-2019 had in Paragraph 31 (page 129 of the Paper Book) submitted that grace marks were given for Questions No.14 and 15. 14. In view of the report of the Expert Committee, it was ordered on 09-03-2021 inter alia as follows; “…………………………………………………….……………………………………………………. In view of the circumstance pertaining to the Answer Keys that has arisen today, let the Respondent No.2 take necessary steps to reveal the names and qualifications of the persons who comprised the Expert Committee, under sealed cover. …………………………………………………..” 15. The Respondent No.2, in compliance of the Order dated 09-03-2021 supra, submitted today in sealed cover the names and qualifications of the persons who comprised the Expert Committee. The Affidavit and the qualifications of the concerned Expert Committee have been perused and taken on record. 16. …………………………………………………..” 15. The Respondent No.2, in compliance of the Order dated 09-03-2021 supra, submitted today in sealed cover the names and qualifications of the persons who comprised the Expert Committee. The Affidavit and the qualifications of the concerned Expert Committee have been perused and taken on record. 16. Today, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the Report of the Expert Committee submitted on 08-03-2021, necessary orders be issued directing the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to appoint the Petitioner from the date on which the other candidates who had appeared for the same examination as him were given appointment, viz., 13-01-2018. Learned Counsel concedes that in view of the fact that the candidates who were so appointed have not all been impleaded as Respondents in this matter thereby depriving them of the opportunity of placing their submissions before this Court, he will be satisfied if the Seniority awarded to him is as the last candidate in the sequence of the list of selected candidates. 17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that he is willing to forego arrears of salary which may have accrued to him from the date of his deemed appointment, however, prays that the incremental benefits as computed in the salaries of other candidates, already appointed as Under Secretaries, also be computed and granted to him to maintain his salary at par with and equivalent to them from the date of appointment, i.e., 13-01-2018. 18. Considered. 19. 18. Considered. 19. In view of the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties, this Writ Petition is being disposed of with the following directions; (i) The State Respondents No.1 and 3 shall appoint the Petitioner in the post of Under Secretary for which all necessary process shall be completed by them on or before 22-03-2021; (ii) The date of appointment of the Petitioner shall be deemed to be from 13-01-2018; (iii) The seniority of the Petitioner for all purposes of his service shall be computed from 13-01-2018; (iv) In view of the circumstance that the selected candidates who are likely to be affected by the outcome of this Writ Petition have not been made party to the Petition, as conceded by the Petitioner, he shall rank last in the sequence of seniority in the list of candidates selected and appointed on 13-01-2018; (v) The Petitioner shall be extended the benefits of increments to his salary. The incremental benefits thereof that would have accrued to the Petitioner shall be computed from 13-01-2018 to place his salary at par with and equivalent to all other selected candidates; and (vi) As the Petitioner voluntarily forgoes his claims for arrears of salary, hence there is no necessity for the State Respondents No.1 and 3 to pay the arrears of salary to the Petitioner from 13-01-2018 retrospectively, till the day before his date of joining. 20. No order as to costs.