Judgment :- (1) These writ petitions involve common question. Hence, they have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment. (2) All the three petitioners appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2009 (hereafter the said Examination) conducted by the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board (hereafter the Board). (3) Soumya, the petitioner in W.P. No.9795 (W) of 2009, secured the ranks 1329 and 5587 in Medical and Engineering Streams respectively. According to the petition case, he reasonably expected to secure a rank within 400 in the Medical Stream. Feeling aggrieved by the result, he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for production of the answer scripts and for re-examination thereof by appointing an expert. (4) The petitioner in W.P. No.11005 (W) of 2009 is Simantini, who is aggrieved because her name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Board. It has been asserted in the petition that she had secured the rank 921 in Medical Stream in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2008 and being a brilliant student, the result is far from her expectation. Defective marking of the answers written by her has been assigned to be the reason for non-inclusion of her name in the merit list. The prayers made in the writ petition are for production of her answer scripts together with solutions to answers provided by the Board to its examiners for the purpose of proper scrutiny of the answers and awarding of marks accordingly. (5) In W. P. No. 11070 (W) of 2009, Subhasish is the aggrieved petitioner. His name did not find place in the Merit List so far as Medical stream is concerned. However, so far as Engineering Stream is concerned, his rank is 1814. Subhasish has sought to demonstrate how good a student he is and that his failure to obtain appropriate rank is attributable to defective and arbitrary marking of his answers by the examiners appointed by the Board. (6) The writ petitions were moved before this Court within the first three days of July, 2009. Being prima facie satisfied that the petitioners had genuine reason to feel aggrieved having regard to their past performance and/or good academic career, the Board was directed to produce the answer scripts written by them upon deposit of a certain amount as precondition for such production. Being prima facie satisfied that the petitioners had genuine reason to feel aggrieved having regard to their past performance and/or good academic career, the Board was directed to produce the answer scripts written by them upon deposit of a certain amount as precondition for such production. (7) It is not disputed at the bar that the said interim orders were challenged by the Board by preferring separate writ appeals and that the stay applications filed in connection therewith have since been dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 13.7.2009. However, it was observed therein as follows:-In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to grant stay of the order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, the learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties once again, will pass the final order taking note of all the Supreme Court decisions and the decisions rendered by this Court. All points are kept open and it is made clear that because of production of the answer scripts, none of the writ petitioner has acquired any right or equity and everything will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. (8) An unreported Division Bench decision of this Court dated 24.4.2006, passed in A.S.T. Nos. 328 and 329 of 2006 (West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Anr. v. Smt. Rooplekha Gangopadhyay), had been placed before this Court in course of hearing of another writ petition involving identical issue. Counsel for all the petitioners were called upon on an earlier occasion to consider the same and to advance their submissions. (9) The short but precise decision of the Division Bench is extracted in its entirety hereunder:- "This appeal is against the order directing the appellant, West Bengal Central School Service Commission to produce answer scripts written by the writ petitioner in a competitive examination, in which she has failed and ultimately no selected. Of course, the writ petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/-. The Commission has now come up in appeal before us to say that the learned Single Judge has committed a jurisdictional error in issuing such direction because, firstly, was a competitive examination, secondly, there was no rule permitting either the re-totaling or re-valuation or even scrutiny of the answer scripts and thirdly, that the petitioner who had failed in a particular system could not complain against that system. We feel that the learned Counsel for the appellant is right on all the three issues. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, suggests that there is nothing wrong if the High Court wants to satisfy itself regarding the correctness of the claim of the petitioner that she, being a brilliant candidate, could not have secured such lowly marks. The contention is clearly incorrect. If there was no scope for scrutiny in the rules, there was no question of the High Court going into the correctness or otherwise of the evaluation process or for that matter scrutiny of the answer scripts. The direction given is, therefore, set aside. Consequently, we dispose of the writ petition being W.P. No.4546 (W) of 2006 as also the application and the appeal treating the same to be in the days list. However, the petitioner would undoubtedly be entitled to get back Rs. 1000/- which she has deposited with the Commission, that would be done within eight days." (10) They have tried their very best to convince this Court that the said decision has no manner of application in the present cases. (11) Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for Soumya contended that the answer scripts constitute the records of the case, which the Writ Court in exercise of Certiorari power is empowered to call for. The Court of Writ, therefore, having directed production of the scripts would also be justified in conducting scrutiny thereof to asceratin as to whether all the answers written by the examinee have been assessed or not and if it is found on such scrutiny that the answers have not been duly assessed, the Court would also be justified in directing its revaluation. (12) A number of decisions have been cited by Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for Simantini in support of the proposition that direction for production of answer scripts by the Court of Writ is not forbidden. The decisions cited are reported in 2007(1) SCC 603 (President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar), AIR 2007 SC 3098 (Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das), 1998 (1) SLR 530 (Dr. The decisions cited are reported in 2007(1) SCC 603 (President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar), AIR 2007 SC 3098 (Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das), 1998 (1) SLR 530 (Dr. Chandra Nath Sarkar v. University of Calcutta and Ors) and Al R 1996 Cal 239 (Miss Sharmistha Gangopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), He has also cited the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 (The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Anr. v. K.S. Jagannathan) to contend that a writ of Mandamus ought to be used when the law has provided no specific remedy. (13) Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for Subhasis cited the decisions reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224 (Lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), 1989 (2) SCC 691 (Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swam; Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani) and 1998 (1) SCC 226 (Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr) in support of his submissions that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and that law has to bend before justice, that Mandamus is a wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found, and that where the executive fails to fill the gap in legislation, the judiciary must step in and provide a solution till legislature acts and covers the field. (14) However, this Court finds itself unable to agree with learned Counsel for the petitioners. (15) The examination, which the sole respondent in A.S.T. Nos. 328 and 329 took, was a competitive examination conducted by the School Service Commission for the purpose of securing public employment. In the present cases, the petitioners took the competitive examination conducted by the Board for the purpose of obtaining admission in Engineering and Medical Colleges. Apart from this factual distinction of the purpose for taking competitive examination, there appears to be no other material distinction. The information brochure published by the Board containing the scheme of the said Examination and circulated for general information of all the examinees provides in Clause 9 as follows:- "9. Evaluation and Declaration of Results of JEM-2009 : 9.1 Rules for scrutiny/review of Answer Sheet : The Board neither publishes nor communicates the result to any individual applicant. The information brochure published by the Board containing the scheme of the said Examination and circulated for general information of all the examinees provides in Clause 9 as follows:- "9. Evaluation and Declaration of Results of JEM-2009 : 9.1 Rules for scrutiny/review of Answer Sheet : The Board neither publishes nor communicates the result to any individual applicant. It does not have any provision for post publication scrutiny and/or review and hence will not entertain any such application after the examination." (16) It is, therefore, clear that an examinee taking the said Examination has no right to claim post-publication scrutiny and/or review of his answers. If this be the position of the scheme governing the said Examination, enunciation of law by the Division Bench of this Court in Rooplekha Gangopadhyay (supra) to the effect that the High Court has no scope to scrutinize the answer scripts would have full application here. (17) Whether or not there is infirmity in posting of marks or arithmetical error in adding up marks or any answer remaining unmarked could have been detected only if the Court could conduct a scrutiny of the answer scripts. However, that course is not open to this Court in view of the Division Bench decision in Rooplekha Gangopadhyay (supra). It is true that the Writ Court in exercise of its Certiorari power is empowered to call for records of a particular case which, in its opinion, are required to be looked into for doing justice to the parties. However, if the Court has no power to conduct scrutiny of the answer scripts, even if it is assumed to form the records of the case, there is hardly any point of looking into it only for recording a satisfaction that the Courts orders have been complied with. Production of script must be for a meaningful purpose. That cannot be achieved in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Rooplekha Gangopadhyay (supra) and, therefore, there is no other option but to decline relief as claimed by the petitioners. (18) The decisions cited by learned Counsel for the parties have been considered. Apart from Suvankar (supra), Ayan Das (supra), Dr. Chandra Nath Sarkar (supra) and Sarmistha Gangopadhyay (supra), the other decisions have not been rendered on grievance expressed by examinees and, therefore, the principle of law laid down therein have no application on facts of these cases. (18) The decisions cited by learned Counsel for the parties have been considered. Apart from Suvankar (supra), Ayan Das (supra), Dr. Chandra Nath Sarkar (supra) and Sarmistha Gangopadhyay (supra), the other decisions have not been rendered on grievance expressed by examinees and, therefore, the principle of law laid down therein have no application on facts of these cases. (19) The decisions in Suvankar (supra) and Ayan Das (supra) though were rendered by the Apex Court in examination related grievances, these were not competitive examinations but conducted by the Secondary Board and the Higher Secondary Council respectively. The test to be applied would obviously be different. (20) In the former case, on facts it was found that errors had crept in the mark-sheet due to wrong entry of marks in the computer and also negligence of the examiner and the scrutinizer. Neither the computer error nor the casual and negligent approach of the examiner and the scrutinizer were found excusable and, accordingly, costs were imposed by the High Court. In appeal it was ruled that for compelling reasons and apparent infirmity, the Court steps in. (21) In the latter case, the High Court had directed re-assessment of an answer script. The Apex Court ruled that since no specific error in assessment was pointed out, the High Court had erred in exercising jurisdiction. (22) In these two cases no law has been laid down by the Apex Court that has the effect of eroding the efficacy of the ratio in Rooplekha Gangopadhyay (supra). No law has also been laid down in Dr. Chandra Nath Sarkar (supra) and Miss Sarmishtha Gangopadhyay (supra) by the Division Benches of this Court empowering a Court of Writ to look into answer scripts of competitive examination for conducting a scrutiny thereof. (23) The writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed. (24) The Board shall return the amount deposited by the respective petitioners in terms of the interim orders immediately after they approach it with a request for refund. (25) Dismissal of these petitions shall not preclude the petitioners to exercise their right under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (26) Copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of W.P. No. 11005 (W) of 2009 and W.P. No. 11070 (W) of 2009. (25) Dismissal of these petitions shall not preclude the petitioners to exercise their right under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (26) Copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of W.P. No. 11005 (W) of 2009 and W.P. No. 11070 (W) of 2009. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order shall be furnished to the applicant as early as possible but positively within four days from putting in requisites there for.