Assertion : Elimination of a competitively inferior species in a closely related or otherwise similar group is known as competitive exclusion principle.
Reason : If two species compete for the same resource, they could aviod competition by choosing different times for feeding or different foraging patterns.

Explanation

### Step-by-Step Solution:

1. **Understanding the Assertion**:
- The assertion states that the elimination of a competitively inferior species in a closely related or similar group is known as the Competitive Exclusion Principle. This principle suggests that two species competing for the same limited resources cannot coexist indefinitely; one will outcompete the other.

2. **Understanding the Reason**:
- The reason provided states that if two species compete for the same resource, they can avoid competition by choosing different feeding times or different foraging patterns. This concept is related to resource partitioning, where species adapt to utilize resources in a way that minimizes competition.

3. **Evaluating the Assertion**:
- The assertion is correct. The Competitive Exclusion Principle is a well-established ecological concept that describes how one species can outcompete another when they are vying for the same resources.

4. **Evaluating the Reason**:
- The reason is also correct in that species can avoid direct competition through resource partitioning, which allows them to coexist by utilizing resources differently (e.g., different times or methods of feeding).

5. **Determining the Relationship**:
- While both the assertion and reason are correct, the reason does not adequately explain the assertion. The Competitive Exclusion Principle specifically refers to the outcome of competition (elimination of one species), while the reason discusses a strategy (resource partitioning) that can help species coexist.

6. **Conclusion**:
- Therefore, the assertion is true, the reason is true, but the reason does not correctly explain the assertion. The correct answer to the question is that both statements are correct, but the reason is not a valid explanation for the assertion.

### Final Answer:
- The assertion is correct, and the reason is correct, but the reason does not explain the assertion. Thus, the answer is Option B.