IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.949 of 2003 ANIL KUMAR RAI SON OF Sri Sheo Nath Rai, resident of Mohalla Dakshin Tola, Domraji Road, P. O. + P. S. Dumrao District- Buxar, at present House No. 212 Sharmaline Olidih Dimna, P. S. Mangoo, District- Jamshedpur. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna. 3. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- 4. 10.07.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer made in this writ application reads as follows;- “1). That this writ application is being filed against the marksheet supplied to the petitioner as being erroneous and against the actual answer given by the petitioner in the written test of Secretariat Assistant (Main) Examination held in pursuant to the Advertisement No. 22/99. the petitioner faired well in the examination and after comparing his answer he is confident of obtaining marks in between 145 and 150 whereas the mark sheet shows that total marks as 120 only resulting in none selection of the petitioner. This writ application is also being filed for other reliefs as well. The petitioner appeared in the Secretariat Assistant Examination in pursuant to the Advertisement No. 22/99. There have been various irregularities in the examination which gave rise to litigation even the marks obtained, in the written examination were not communicated and as such considering his performance the petitioner filed writ application being CWJC No. 11165/2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.02 as the marks sheet were already 2 supplied to the petitioner giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the mark sheet if the petitioner is aggrieved . The petitioner has not been communicated about the cut off marks and was only informed that none obtain lessor marks than the petitioners have been selected. The petitioner has been persuing his grievance for looking into the answer sheet afresh but invain.” From a bare reading of the aforementioned prayer it would appear that the present writ application is of a most speculative nature. The petitioner was supplied mark sheet and there is a provision in B.P.S.C. Regulations for retotaling of marks in an answersheet, if a candidate would file an application with requisite fees within a period of 60 days. Admittedly, the petitioner did not choose to do so and had straightway moved before this Court for the aforementioned reliefs. That apart, when the Commission has explained that there is no provision for reevaluation of the answer sheet and this Court has also not been provided anything spectacular about the earlier academic attainment of the petitioner it would be very difficult for this Court now to direct the respondents to reopen the matter after 10 years of the examination. 3 That being so, this Court would find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)