1 CWP 11123/09 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No.11123/2009 Bhanu Kumar Vaishnav Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 16/09/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. SK Singodiya, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the only grievance that he may be allowed to inspect his answer book of RAS Main Examination, 2007 and further in case he points out the mistake in awarding the marks, then the respondents be directed to re- evaluate/recheck the answer books. The petitioner appeared in RAS Main Examination, 2007 and its result was declared on 18/03/2009. Thereafter the respondent- Commission initiated the process of holding interview and after its completion, the final list of selected candidates of RAS Examination, 2007 has also been declared. Under the Circulars of the Commission, there is a provision for re-totaling of the marks. The petitioner, being dissatisfied submitted application and thereupon the respondent- Commission vide Anx.8 dated 27th August, 2009 informed the petitioner that on re-totaling of his marks, there appears no change. The instant writ petition has been filed on 05th September, 2009. Counsel submits that on earlier two occasions, the petitioner appeared in RAS Main Examination and remained successful and this is his third attempt and there is a bonafide apprehension that this time he has been declared unsuccessful in RAS Main 2 CWP 11123/09 Examination, 2007 because of some ulterior motive and reasons. Merely because the petitioner earlier appeared and succeeded in the written examination, it cannot be presumed that this time in 2007 also he was supposed to be declared successful. No provision has been brought to the notice of this Court which provides for re-evaluation and rechecking of the answering sheet in absence whereof, the respondent-Commission was not under obligation to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner of the RAS Examination, 2007. So far as filing application under Right to Information Act is concerned, the petitioner is always at liberty to avail the remedy available to him under law. This Court finds no substance in the instant petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu-11123cw2009-final.doc