IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10965 of 2007 SANJAY KUMAR Versus THE V.C.,PATNA UNIVERSITY &ORS ----------- 2. 21/08/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to produce answersheet of LL.M. Part-1 Examination 2004 in Court and re-evaluate/scrutiny/retotal the same. Case of the petitioner is that he was a student of LL.M. of the Sessions 2000-03. Part-I examination of such Session was held in the year 2004 and result of the same was published in the year 2005. Petitioner was not satisfied with his result, and therefore, he deposited fee for re- evaluation/scrutiny/re-totaling of two subjects, i.e. Legal Theory and Jurisprudence and Legal History. Since the respondents did not take step in the matter, petitioner filed a petition before the Registrar-cum-Public Information Officer, Patna University under Right to Information Act on 13.4.2007. When the petitioner did not get any reply to his petition, he filed appeal before the Vice- - 2 - Chancellor of the University on 14.6.2007. Final date of hearing by the Vice-Chancellor was fixed and the petitioner appeared before the Vice Chancellor, where it is said that he was informed by the Registrar of the University that the answersheets were not available now. In the circumstances, petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents filed this writ application. Respondents have filed counter affidavit in the case. In the counter affidavit it is said that the application of the petitioner for scrutiny of his answersheets was entertained and his answersheets were, in fact, scrutinized and on scrutiny it was found that the marks allotted to the petitioner in those two papers were correct, and thereafter, result of the scrutiny was published on the notice board of the University under the signature of Controller of Examination dated 19.6.2006 itself. However, petitioner was not satisfied with his scrutiny, and therefore, he filed application before the University authorities under the Right to Information Act. It is said in the counter affidavit that thereafter as per regulation - 3 - large number of answer books of previous examination including that of the petitioner have been disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that there is no provision in the regulation for re-evaluation of the answersheet and opportunity of scrutiny of answersheets is available to a candidate only once. There is no provision in the regulation for repeated scrutiny and, therefore, petitioner’s grievance against scrutiny of the answersheets could not be entertained. It is submitted by learned counsel for the University that since on the application of petitioner, his answersheets had already been scrutinized and the result of scrutiny had been displayed on the notice board as far back as in the year 2006 itself, there was no scope for further scrutiny or re-evaluation of the answersheets. Now, when the answersheets have been disposed of as per regulation of the University, no further indulgence can be given to the petitioner in the matter. Considering the rival submissions, the submission made by learned counsel for the University appears to be correct. Answersheets - 4 - of the petitioner were scrutinized once and no changes in the marks were found. Therefore, the matter stands concluded and no further opportunity is available to the petitioner to challenge the same. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)