Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Having the requisite qualifications, the petitioner participated in the Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test 2011 examination (hereinafter 'RTET-2011') in the category of OBC female both in appear Level-I and paper Level-II on 31.07.2011. The result of the examination was declared on 28.08.2011 and the petitioner secured 80 marks out of 150 marks in paper Level-I and 34 marks out of 150 in appear Level-II of the RTET-2011 examination as against the requirement of 67.50 minimum marks in the category of OBC female in each paper for being declared as pass and entitle to a certificate of eligibility. 2. Being dissatisfied with the result of her RTET-2011 examination, more particularly paper Level-II examination, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain the answer sheet with OMR sheet and mark-sheet of paper Level-I and II. The petitioner was supplied the copy of the answer sheet with OMR sheet of paper Level-I and II on 8.10.2011 and further answer key of paper Level-II (Booklet series C) was procured by the petitioner by way of website/online service of the Secretary and Coordinator, Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011. According to the petitioner, on the comparison of her performance in paper Level-II of RTET 2011 with answer key of said paper obtained from the website of the respondents it transpired that the petitioner had in fact secured 99 marks and not 34 marks out of 150 marks in paper Level-II and the petitioner was thus wrongly marked in the paper Level-II in RTET-2011 examination. 3. The petitioner approached the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan through which the examination has been conducted pointing out the error in her evaluation and sought revaluation of her paper in Level-II with a modified result consequently. The request of the revaluation was denied in view of the fact that there was no provision of revaluation of marks under RTET-2011. 4. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The respondent-Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer has submitted hat over seven lacks students took the RTET-2011 examination which was based on objective questions and answer which had to be given in the OMR sheet by making a black ball on the OMR sheet against the correct answer and these OMR sheets were scanned by a computer. 5. The respondent-Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer has submitted hat over seven lacks students took the RTET-2011 examination which was based on objective questions and answer which had to be given in the OMR sheet by making a black ball on the OMR sheet against the correct answer and these OMR sheets were scanned by a computer. It is submitted that the OMR sheets contain space for answers as well box space for mentioning the necessary details such as roll number, question booklet number, language etc. It has been submitted that secrecy department of the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer has fixed criteria regarding award of question booklet number and their answer sheet of OMR had to be evaluated on the basis of Code decided on the basis of question booklet number. The above criteria was fixed and the question booklet number had to be divided by four and consequently the numbers were 0, 1, 2 & 3 and the Code as D, A, B, C respectively. 6. It has been submitted that in the present petition, a challenge has been made on the ground that while evaluating the petitioner's answer sheet by booklet series D of RTET-2011 examination (Level-II), the respondents have acted arbitrarily when in fact her answer booklet ought to have been corrected with reference to series C instead of series D. It has been submitted that when the petitioner was supplied the answer sheet along with OMR sheet, she had to fill up all the entries of the answer sheet as well as OMR sheet correctly. The petitioner mentioned her question booklet number as 2429536 on the OMR sheet wrongly in place of 2429563 which is apparent from the annexures filed by the petitioner herself. It has be3en submitted that on account of above mistake committed by the petitioner, the OMR sheet was examined with reference to Code/series D and not Code/series C. It has been submitted that OMR sheet of the petitioner would have been examined with reference to Code C had the petitioner mentioned the correct question booklet number 2429563. The counsel for the respondents would therefore submit that the error in the evaluation of the petitioner's performance in the RTET-2011 examination was a consequence of the petitioner's own error and was not attributable to the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. The counsel for the respondents would therefore submit that the error in the evaluation of the petitioner's performance in the RTET-2011 examination was a consequence of the petitioner's own error and was not attributable to the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. It is submitted that the entire exercise of the evaluation of the RTET-2011 examination both in paper Level-I and II is computerized and the answer sheet of the petitioner as correctly evaluated as per the information inserted (albeit wrongly) by her in the answer sheet with regard to her question booklet number. Counsel further submits that in view of the fact that there is no provision for revaluation and rechecking in the RTET-2011 examination, no revaluation was carried out. The further submission is that in any event the RTET examination is to be held every six months and the petitioner can participate afresh. 7. Counsel for the petitioner would in rejoinder submit that the error made by the petitioner was quite obvious by inadvertent and merely an incident of "the inevitable human mistake" syndrome. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a poor family from a rural background and to deny her the fruits of her performance owing to an error would be harsh and inequitable. It has been also submitted that in view of the fact that the error has now come to light and it is clear that in the event the error were to be rectified, the petitioner would secured 99 marks out of 150 marks and be declared passed, this Court should exercise its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to facilitate the petitioner overcome the hardship. 8. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and having perused the facts on record, it is apparent that cause of the petitioner's grievance is her own error. The fact however remains that the error has now been identified and in the event the petitioner's performance in RTET-2011 examination paper Level-II is evaluated as per her allocated question booklet number, the petitioner would secure about 99 marks out of 150 marks in Level-II and be declared pass entitling her to be eligible for recruitment as a Teacher in school covered by the Right to Education Act. 9. 9. In the facts of the case, I would therefore direct the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer to revaluate the petitioner's performance in paper Level-II of RTET-2011 examination with reference to her answer sheet being considered under series C as pr her question booklet number 2429563. The counsel for the respondents has not denied that the petitioner's question booklet number was 2429563 and as such ought to have been evaluated, in the event of the petitioner making the correct entry, with reference to series C. The respondent-Board is directed to make the necessary revaluation within a period of three weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. As the entire litigation has been occasioned by the petitioner's own careless and negligence, this petition is allowed with a token cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Board.