JUDGMENT 1. - At joint request and with consent of parties, these 11 petitions since involve identical questions of law were heard finally and are disposed of at admission stage by this order. 2. In bunch of 11 petitions, petitioners are seeking mandamus against respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission ("RPSC) for revaluation of their answer sheets of written examination in which they appeared for the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of advertisement dated 2.6.2004 (Ann. 1). 3. Facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication of common controversy raised at the bar, are that respondent PSC issued advertisement dated 2.6.2004 (Ann. 1) holding selection for the post of Teacher Gr. III, which is included in Schedule of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ("Rules, 1996"). Petitioners being eligible submitted applications and in all 1,53,417 applications were received by RPSC. Written examination was conducted on 12.9.2004 at all district head quarters - result whereof was declared on 11.2.2005; names of selected candidates were recommended by RPSC to the State Government for their appointment and as informed, 33000 applicants as per their respective merit were appointed in pursuance of selection (supra). 4. An interim order was passed in CWP 6880/04 (Chandmal Saharan v. State) on 8.2.2005 whereby this Court considered proper to direct RPSC to publish a Notice in News paper for revaluation with a liberty to charge fees whereof from the examinees. In compliance whereof, RPSC published Notice in Newspaper calling upon applicants if desirous for revaluation of their answer sheets after deposit of requisite fee and accordingly, petitioners beside others deposited requisite fee and applied for revaluation of their answer sheets but by the time it could be further processed under interim order dated 8.2.2005 (supra), CWP 6880/04 along with connected petitions came to be finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2004 - as a consequence whereof, RPSC has not processed revaluation of answer sheets of applicants any further and decided to refund fee of Rs. 100/- to the respective applicants. Hence these petitions. 5. In CWP 5142/05, albeit other questions have also been raised but in course of arguments, Shri D.V. Tholia, Counsel for petitioner has confined his submissions to identical issue about revaluation of answer sheet only. 6. 100/- to the respective applicants. Hence these petitions. 5. In CWP 5142/05, albeit other questions have also been raised but in course of arguments, Shri D.V. Tholia, Counsel for petitioner has confined his submissions to identical issue about revaluation of answer sheet only. 6. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that once RPSC published notice calling upon applicants, who appeared in written examination but not satisfied with their result, to submit applications along with fees of Rs. 100/- and once the petitioners submitted applications as required under the Notice, action of Commission in not further processing their applications was wholly arbitrary and their action was in violation of An. 14 of the Constitution. Counsel further submits that question paper was objective type and after the key was published, applicants have examined their own answers so as to know actual marks which they could have secured and there is much variance among marks awarded by RPSC and what they ought to have secured according to their valuation; and this presumption cannot be ruled out that answer sheet being checked through computer and if applicant has failed to put proper tick/circle or requisite mark or sign on the option which he has chosen out of four, computer has failed to scan answer opted by examinees, which has caused great injustice to them; in such circumstances, in the interest of justice if their answer sheet is now re-valuated in terms of notice published, no prejudice even otherwise is going to be caused to RPSC; as such petitioners are merely desirous to know as to whether there is any error of computer or wrong being committed by them. 7. Respondent RPSC in their reply inter alia averred that total 1,52,417 applications for the post in question were received and after declaration of result whereof, names of 33,000 candidates were recommended to State Government for their appointment and process of selection is complete in so far as it relates to on the part of RPSC. Counsel for the RPSC urged that even earlier two rounds of litigation - (1) with regard to qualification as stipulated in Rules, 1996 &. Counsel for the RPSC urged that even earlier two rounds of litigation - (1) with regard to qualification as stipulated in Rules, 1996 &. (2) in respect of the key published by RPSC was challenged in bunch or petitions; but in both the litigation's, action of the RPSC was finally affirmed by this Court and instant bunch is third round of litigation where applicants have come forward seeking revaluation of their answer sheets, which in absence of any statutory provision under Rules, examinees cannot seek- revaluation of their answer sheets and process in dispute was initiated by RPSC only because of interim order passed by this Court in CWP 6880/04 (Chandmal Saharan v. State) on 8.2.2005 , and this Court being satisfied with report of RPSC, CWP 6880/04 (supra) was disposed of vide order dated 8.11.2004 - as a consequence whereof, applications of petitioners and others submitted in pursuance of Notice published in newspaper were not processed any further and fees of Rs. 100/- deposited by them have been ordered to be refunded to respective applicants and if not received can be collected by them from their office. 8. 100/- deposited by them have been ordered to be refunded to respective applicants and if not received can be collected by them from their office. 8. Moreover, procedure adopted by the RPSC in examining answer sheets through computer was also got examined by a Committee constituted by University of Rajasthan and the Committee (supra) also found the same in order and no error was pointed out in the procedure adopted by the Commission and that apart, randomly answer sheets of 2200 applicants were checked manually and in which no error was pointed out and they submitted their declaration showing satisfaction for their answer sheets being evaluated properly by computer - in support whereof, relevant material was furnished while CWP 6880/04 was being heard and after examining the report & so also material produced, this Court was satisfied with the procedure adopted by the Commission and finally disposed of CWP 6880/04 on 8.11.2004 and in this view of matter and in absence of any statutory requirement under rules, petitioners cannot claim revaluation of answer sheets as a matter of right and in this regard, Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, ( 1984 (4) SCC 27 ) , Pramod Kumar Srivastvava v. Chairman Bihar PSC Patna, ( 2004 (6) SCC 714 ) , MP PSC v. Om Prakash Gupta ( 1997 (6) SCC 645 , Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda ( 2004 (13) SCC 383 ) and that of High Court in Maha Nand Bhatt v. Uttaranchal Siksha Evam Parisha Parishad Ramnagar (AIR 2005 Uttaranchal 11) .I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. This fact cannot be ruled out that rural mass who have participated in process of selection In dispute, are not much conversant with advance technology introduced and the manner in which computer scanned answer sheets and it will take sometime to make them conversant and despite instructions, the Commission has taken all precautions and proper instructions issued so it was expected from applicants to go through instructions before they attempted question papers. 9. It is not in dispute that there is no provision stipulated under the Rules where applications can be submitted by examinees for revaluation of their answer sheets. 9. It is not in dispute that there is no provision stipulated under the Rules where applications can be submitted by examinees for revaluation of their answer sheets. Indisputably, the process of revaluation was initiated by RPSC only because of interim order passed by this Court in CWP 6880/04 (Chandmal Saharan v. State) on 8.2.2005 ; and since after being satisfied with report of RPSC, CWP 6880/04 (supra) was disposed of vide order dated 8.11.2004. That apart, this fact also remained undisputed that, more than 1.50 lacs candidates appeared in written examination and out of final selection, 33,000 names were recommended by the RPSC to State Government for appointment to the post in question and in pursuance of interim order passed by this Court in CWP 6880/04 (Chandmal Saharan v. State) on 8.2.2005 , more than 20,000 applications were received and as brought to my notice, 2200 applications were manually checked and not even in one, any error was pointed out and the answer sheet was also shown to the applicants, who have signed after examining their answer sheet and were satisfied with their result and the procedure adopted by the Commission was also checked by the Committee constituted by University of Rajasthan. Petitioners have only alleged in their petition that marks secured by them were not as per their expectations, which may have ones presumption but no one has placed any material to substantiate their averments made in petitions. On the other hand, sufficient material has been placed by the RPSC to justify their procedure adopted and examined by this Court while disposing earlier CWP 6880/04. 10. However, in present factual matrix, I am satisfied with the procedure adopted by the Commission in evaluating answer sheets on random basis and I do not find any error in the impugned decision of the Commission, which even otherwise has not caused any injustice to any of the petitioners in instant petitions. This is not in dispute that there is no provision under Rules for revaluation of answer sheet - in absence whereof, revaluation of answer sheets cannot be claimed as a matter of right and this has been consistently held by Apex Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (supra) as under: "6. This is not in dispute that there is no provision under Rules for revaluation of answer sheet - in absence whereof, revaluation of answer sheets cannot be claimed as a matter of right and this has been consistently held by Apex Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (supra) as under: "6. The High Court though observed that the writ petitioner who has taken the examination is hardly a competent person to assess his own merit and on that basis claim for re-evaluation of papers, but issued the aforesaid direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks. It is an admitted position that the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa do not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer books of the students." 11. In Pramod Kumar Srivastvava v. Chairman Bihar PSC Patna (supra), Apex Court examined the question whether in absence of any provision an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer books and observed as under: "in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer book of the appellant re-evaluation (sic. ed.). Adopting such a course will give rise to practical problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." (Paras 7 & 8)In view of settled principles of law & in absence of provision, revaluation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 12. Consequently, all these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed alongwith stay petitions. No costs.All writ petition dismissed. *******