IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Writ Petition No. 800 of 2004 (S/B) Date of decision: 25th August, 2004 For the approval of: Hon’ble Chief Justice V.S. Sirpurkar. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain. - Whether the order/judgment should be sent to the reporters for reporting? ( ) - Whether the reporters be allowed to see the judgment? ( Yes ) G IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 800 of 2004 (M/B) Pradyumna Bisht & another. ….. Petitioners Versus Public Service Commission Uttaranchal, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar, Uttaranchal. ….. Respondent Mr. Pradyumna Bisht, petitioner is person. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent. Coram: Hon. V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. Hon. Irshad Hussain, J. Date: 25th August, 2004 (Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. Heard the petitioner Mr. Pradyumna Bisht in person and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of this Court for the disclosure of the marks secured by then and everybody on the internet. 3. We do not understand as to what is the right of the petitioners. It was specifically provided in the advertisement, which was meant for holding preliminary examinations of the Civil Services of State of Uttaranchal that the marks will not be informed to the concerned candidates, who appear in that examination. Petitioners did not object to that and did not challenge the advertisement. It5 is only after the petitioners find that they have been unsuccessful in the examination, that the petitioners now want to know the marks. We do not think that the writ petition can be entertained on this ground. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Irshad Hussain, J.) (V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.) 25.8.2004 25.8.2004 G