WP(C) 6456/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. YS Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The State is represented by Mr. H. Rahman, learned Government Advocate, Assa m. The non-consideration of the petitioner’s application dated 20th May, 20 10 for furnishing the answer scripts of the State Civil Services Examination of 2006 by the Assam Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as APSC , has led to the filing of the instant writ petition. The petitioner was a candidate in the Civil Services Examination and had earlier approached this Court to challenge his non-selection. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 6.5.2010 passed in W.P.(C) no.2377 of 2010, has held that the allegation made by the petitioner were wholly unfounded and unten able and a frivolous writ petition has been filed by the candidate without takin g minimum care and caution to verify the allegations made in the writ petition. Accordingly, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed wit h a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The SLP (Civil) No. 22775/2010 filed against the Division Bench order wa s also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20.8.2010. After the dismissal of his cases, the petitioner had applied for the ans wer scripts of the examination conducted by the APSC. In this case, the petition er has not been diligent and applied for information under the RIT Act, 2006 onl y after his writ petition and the special leave petition was dismissed by the Co urts. Earlier the petitioner had not ascertained the facts before he approached the Courts to challenge the selection made by the APSC. The rejection of the wri t petition does not give a second chance to the writ petitioner to fish for addi tional information on a public examination conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission. Accordingly, his prayer at this stage is not found to be reasonable and accordingly this case is dismissed. However, Mr. Mannan submits that the proceeding pertaining to other appl ication(s) under the RTI not considered by the APSC is now pending consideration of the Supreme Court and accordingly the counsel submits that the APSC may be d irected to act on the petitioner’s application, depending on the outcome of the pending proceeding before the Supreme Court. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel for the APSC does not object to the prayer of the petitioner for considering his application under the RTI after the Supreme Court dispose of the pending matter pertaining to the information s ought from the APSC, under the RTI Act, 2006. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the APSC, not withstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the APSC may consider the petit ioner’s application in the light of the decision of the Apex Court, in the SLP ( Civil) No.(s) 30858-30861/2009. It is ordered accordingly.