IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11249 of 2010 1. Nitesh Kumar S/O Sri Shivneshwari Prasad R/O Mohalla- Vidyapuri, P.S. Madhepura, Distt.- Madhepura Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Deptt. Of Personnel And Administrative Deptt, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Examination Controller Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Secretary Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, Advocate For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate ---------- 2. 17.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). The petitioner was an applicant under the 48th to 52 Combined Joint (Mains) Competitive Examination held in 2008 by the Commission. He is aggrieved by having been declared unsuccessful with a perception that marks have not been allowed to him in accordance with the labour put in by him. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the Commission after serving a copy on the Counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the Commission is unable to inform the date of filing. The office shall endeavour to locate it and place the same on record. From the contents of the counter affidavit of the Commission the Court finds that retotalling of his marks has been done and communicated to him that there was no defect. The retotalling of the marks is one aspect, his desire to see his answer sheet is another aspect. It is contended that the application filed under the Right to Information Act before the original authority never came to be decided. The appeal filed is also pending. Now that the law with regard to the rights of a candidate to his answer sheet stands settled in (2011) 8 SCC 497, the application is disposed with the observation that if the application of the petitioner for copy of his answer sheet has not been disposed by the original authority under the Right to Information Act let it be so done in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. If it has been rejected let the appellate authority consider the appeal in accordance with the same judgment. The order must be complied with within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the competent authority. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)