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). 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 250½ in aggregate in all subjects, including the viva-voce. (v). Being aggrieved by the non-revision of the select-list by placing the petitioner above the respondent No. 3, herein, by granting to her due marks for the questions against which she had marked correct answers, and consequent non-issuance of appointment letter in her favour, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instituting the present proceedings. 4. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, has by reiterating the facts, as noticed hereinabove, submitted that the petitioner, herein, for 2(two) questions answered correctly by her, was denied marks. The questions involved are Question No. 36 in the General Knowledge paper, and Question No. 4 in the Computer Theory paper. 4. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, has by reiterating the facts, as noticed hereinabove, submitted that the petitioner, herein, for 2(two) questions answered correctly by her, was denied marks. The questions involved are Question No. 36 in the General Knowledge paper, and Question No. 4 in the Computer Theory paper. By referring to the answer scripts of the petitioner of the said papers, it is submitted that against both the questions, the petitioner had marked the correct answer, and in support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the answers given for the same questions by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the petitioner been given 4 (four) marks against the said 2 (two) questions, her score would have raised to 254½, placing her above the respondent No. 3 and accordingly, she would have been eligible for being appointed against the post of LDC so advertised, in place of the respondent No. 3. 5. Mr. Kamduk, learned counsel has by referring to the rejoinder-affidavit filed in the matter by the petitioner against the affidavit filed by the State respondents, has submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, were even awarded marks for the wrong options selected by them. He highlights that the respondent No. 4 against Question No. 13 of the Computer Theory paper was awarded 2 (two) marks although he had opted for option (a) as the correct answer, while the right answer was option (d). Further, he submits that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, in respect of Question No. 15 of the Computer Theory paper had opted for option (b) and were awarded 2 (two) marks, whereas, the right answer was option (a). He further submits that the respondent No. 3 had against Question No. 24 of the Computer Theory paper, also opted for the wrong answer but he was still granted 2 (two) marks. Accordingly, he submits that the said marks wrongly awarded to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 is required to be reduced. He submits that in the event, the marks given for the wrong answers against Question No. 13, 15 & 24, in respect of respondent No. 3 is so reduced, the marks scored by him in the selection process would be brought down to 251½. 3 & 4 is required to be reduced. He submits that in the event, the marks given for the wrong answers against Question No. 13, 15 & 24, in respect of respondent No. 3 is so reduced, the marks scored by him in the selection process would be brought down to 251½. The petitioner being eligible to receive 4 (four) marks against the answers given by him against Question No. 36 of the General Knowledge paper and Question No. 4 of the Computer Theory paper, his marks would stand raised to 254½ and accordingly, the petitioner would be placed at Serial No. 2 in the Select-list and she would be entitled to be appointed against the post of LDC. 6. Mr. Kamduk, learned counsel has submitted that the said errors pointed out by him would not require any inferential process of deduction and the same being apparent on the face of the records, this Court would be entitled to consider the same and direct the respondents to recast the Select-list accordingly, placing the petitioner at Serial No. 2. Mr. Kamduk further submits that on the placement of the petitioner at Serial No. 2, she would be entitled to be appointed against one of the posts of LDC, occupied by the respondent No. 3, for which the appointment of the respondent number 3 would call for an interference by this Court. 7. Per-contra, Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, by referring to the affidavit filed in the matter by the state respondents has submitted that while the plea of the petitioner with regard to Question No. 36 of the General Knowledge paper is concerned, it was found that she had opted for the right answer. However, 2 (two) marks against the same was not granted to her by the examiner, inadvertently. However, with regard to Question No. 4 of the Computer Theory paper attempted by the petitioner, she submits that the petitioner had put a tick mark (? ) against option (b) of the said question but had, thereafter, scored of the same with a cross mark (x) on the left side without crossing the tick mark (? ) given against the question on the left side. She further submits that the petitioner had marked option (c) by giving a tick mark (? ) on the right side of the option. ) given against the question on the left side. She further submits that the petitioner had marked option (c) by giving a tick mark (? ) on the right side of the option. Accordingly, 2 (two) options were found to have been selected by the petitioner and the examiner in his wisdom had not accepted the options chosen by the petitioner and had not granted to her any marks, against the same. 8. With regard to the allegation that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, were given marks even for wrong answers given by them, both in the Computer Theory paper, Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the options given by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, on being found to be corresponding to the correct answers against the said questions in the Answer Key published in the matter; they were awarded marks against the said questions and accordingly, there would be no occasion to deduct the said marks from the total marks scored by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Ms. Ete has further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the Answer Key as relied upon by the respondents in the matter. Accordingly, she submits that even if 2 (two) marks against Question No. 36 in the General Knowledge paper is awarded to the petitioner, her marks would still be below that of the respondent No. 3 and accordingly, the Select-list in question, prepared by the authorities after the selection process, would not mandate any interference. 9. Mr. S. Koyang, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, has adopted the argument advanced by Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. He has further submitted that the respondent No. 3, in pursuance to his appointment, has been discharging his duties in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Lohit District, Tezu, without any blemish. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also, perused the materials available on record. 11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner has in the present petition, assailed the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 and has not questioned the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4. Accordingly, the consideration in the present order is limited to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 only. 12. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner has in the present petition, assailed the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 and has not questioned the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4. Accordingly, the consideration in the present order is limited to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 only. 12. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner at the first instance has raised a grievance with regard to the denial of marks to her against Question No. 36 of the General Knowledge paper and Question No. 4 of the Computer Theory paper. The original Answer Scripts of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4, were produced before this Court by Ms. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondents. The question and response given by the petitioner against Question No. 36 of the General Knowledge paper being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ Question No. 36. Who is called the “Napoleon” of Ancient India? (a). Chandragupta Murya (b). Pushyamitra (c). Kanishka ? (d). Samudragupta” The petitioner against this question had opted option (d). Samudragupta as the correct answer.” 13. It is seen that the respondent No. 3, against the same question had given option (d). “ Samudragupta” , as the correct answer. It is revealed from the Answer Scripts of the respondent No. 3, that while against Question No. 36 for the option chosen by him, he was given 2 (two) marks, the petitioner for choosing the very same option, with regard to Question No. 36 was not given any marks. 14. With regard to Question No. 4 of the Computer Theory paper, the question and the responses available being relevant, is quoted hereinbelow: “ 4. _______ is a windows utility program that locates and eliminates unnecessary fragments and rearranges file and unused disk space to optimize operations. (a). Backup (b). Disk cleanup (c). Disk defragmenter (d). Restore” 15. The petitioner had put a tick mark (? ) in option (b) as the correct answer. However, on the right side of the said option, she had put a cross-mark (x). Thereafter, the petitioner is seen to have put a tick mark (? ) on the right side of option (c). The respondent No. 4, had also opted for option (c) against the Question No. 4 and was awarded 2 (two) marks. However, on the right side of the said option, she had put a cross-mark (x). Thereafter, the petitioner is seen to have put a tick mark (? ) on the right side of option (c). The respondent No. 4, had also opted for option (c) against the Question No. 4 and was awarded 2 (two) marks. For appreciating the said answers given by the petitioner, it is to be noted that in the instruction to candidates set up in the booklet, it was provided that a candidate must put tick mark (? ) against the correct option with a ballpoint pen (black/blue). It was further provided that changing the answer is allowed only once for each. Further, in case a candidate wanted to change the answer already tick marked, he was to put a cross (x), against the earlier option and tick mark (? ) the new option. 16. It is seen that the petitioner had put a tick mark (? ) against option (b). However, the same was not crossed out by putting a cross mark (x) with regard to the same. The cross mark (x) was put in the right side of the option and, thereafter, it is seen that the petitioner had put a tick mark (? ) against option (c) on its right side, without crossing (x) against option (b) tick marked by her at the first instance. Accordingly, the petitioner was found to have given tick mark (? ), against 2 (two) answers, without crossing out any of them. Accordingly, the examiner having not accepted the options so given by the petitioner against the said question, no error can be found to have been so committed. 17. Accordingly, in view of the above position, it is seen that the petitioner would be entitled only to 2 (two) marks, i.e., for the correct answer given by her against Question No. 36 of the General Knowledge paper. The petitioner having scored 250 ½ in the selection process, addition of further 2 (two) marks for the said correct answer would take her marks to 252 ½. The petitioner having scored 250 ½ in the selection process, addition of further 2 (two) marks for the said correct answer would take her marks to 252 ½. The petitioner having held to be not entitled to further 2 (two) marks for the Question No. 4 of the Computer Theory paper in view of the fact that the options were chosen by the petitioner in violation of the instructions set out for the candidates in the booklet, no marks, therefore, would be available to be granted to the petitioner on the said count. Accordingly, the marks of the petitioner now having raised to 252½, she would still be below the respondent No. 3, who had secured 253½ marks in the selection process. 18. Having noticed the said position, this Court would now examine the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent No. 3 was given marks even for wrong answers opted by her. Such wrong answers were contended to have been opted by the respondent No. 3 against Question Nos. 13, 15 and 24 of the Computer Theory paper. 19. With regard to Question No. 13 of the Computer Theory paper, the respondent No. 3 had opted for option (a). A perusal of the Answer Key brought on record by the respondents would reveal that the correct option set-out, therein, is also (a). The respondent No. 3 cannot be said to have opted for a wrong answer. Similarly, with regard to Question No. 15, the respondent No. 3 had opted for Answer (b). The Answer Key further reveals that the correct option set-out, therein, against Question No. 15 is also (b). Accordingly, for Question No. 15 also, the respondent No. 3 cannot be said to have opted for a wrong answer. With regard to Question No. 24, the respondent No. 3 had opted for option (b) as the correct answer, which corresponds to the correct answer option given against the said question in the Answer Key. 20. In view of the said position, the options opted by the respondent No. 3 as the correct answer against Question Nos. With regard to Question No. 24, the respondent No. 3 had opted for option (b) as the correct answer, which corresponds to the correct answer option given against the said question in the Answer Key. 20. In view of the said position, the options opted by the respondent No. 3 as the correct answer against Question Nos. 13, 15 and 24 of the Computer Theory paper, being found to have been in terms of the Answer Key brought on record by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the answers for the said questions opted by the respondent No. 3, was wrong, would not mandate an acceptance. 21. At this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioner while contending that the respondent No. 3 had opted for the wrong answers with regard to Question Nos. 13, 15, and 24 of the Computer Theory paper, and having made a feeble attempt to question the Answer Key given for the said questions, it is to be noted that it is a settled position of law that the answer key is assumed to be correct, unless it is proved to be wrong, and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. The Answer Key must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong by the person questioning it. In other words, the onus is on the person disputing the Answer Key to clearly demonstrate that the option as given therein is incorrect and that too without an inferential process of reasoning or after a process of rationalization. 22. Also, in the case in hand, while the petitioner had questioned the answers opted by the respondent No. 3 as the correct answer against Question Nos. 13, 15 and 24 of the Computer Theory paper, he has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the options given in the Answer Key were wrong. Further, it is to be noted that the answer key as prepared by the respondent authorities was also not questioned by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 23. 13, 15 and 24 of the Computer Theory paper, he has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the options given in the Answer Key were wrong. Further, it is to be noted that the answer key as prepared by the respondent authorities was also not questioned by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 23. In view of the above, even if 2 (two) marks are granted to the petitioner against Question No. 36 of the General Knowledge paper, she would not steal a march over the respondent No. 3 and she would continue to be placed below the respondent No. 3 in the Select-list. Accordingly, the selection and consequential appointment of the respondent No. 3, which is based on the merit position obtained by her in the selection process, would not mandate any interference. 24. In view of the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3, would not mandate any interference from this Court and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.