ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 2. Petitioner was applicant for the 45th Combined Competitive Examination pursuant to Advertisement dated 28.12.2001 published in Dainik Jagran newspaper Patna edition of the same date, Annexure-1. He has filed this writ petition questioning the decision of the Commission bearing letter no.2058 dated 10.12.2007, Annexure-5 whereunder he has been informed under Right to Information Act that marks obtained by him in General Studies Paper-II has been cancelled in the light of the decision of the Commission dated 1.9.2004, Annexure-8 and he has been awarded zero marks in the said paper. In this connection, petitioner obtained further information under Right to Information Act bearing letter no.11 dated 3.4.2008, Annexure-7 that his answer sheet of General Studies Paper-II bearing Roll No.162508 appertaining to code no.212070 is found underlined with red ink, which is contrary to the important instruction no.1(ka) given at page-1 of the answer book and in appreciation of such underlining the marks secured in General Studies Paper-II same was cancelled by the Commission under its resolution dated 1.9.2004, Annexure-8. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the proceedings of the Commission dated 1.9.2004, Annexure-8 submitted that case of the petitioner is covered by Clause-3 of the proceeding dated 1.9.2004 whereunder Commission resolved to ignore P.T.O., TURN OVER, K.T.O. or KRIPYA PRIST ULTE written on the right hand page of the answer book together with the underlining of the answers. 4. Counsel for the Commission, however, opposed the submission and submitted that writing of P.T.O., TURN OVER, K.T.O. or KRIPYA PRIST ULTE on the right hand page of the answer book was exempted but not the putting of semi colon, encircling the question number, underlining the heading of the question with or without cross and from perusal of the answer book of General Studies, Paper-II of the petitioner, it would appear that petitioner had encircled the question number, put semi colon, comma, inverted comma and underlined the heading/sub-heading of the question, as such, his case is not covered by the exception Clasue-3 of minutes dated 1.9.2004 of the Commission. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the Commission has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 7th November, 2008 in the case of Jankee Ballabh Pandey Vs. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the Commission has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 7th November, 2008 in the case of Jankee Ballabh Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. He has also relied on the earlier judgment of the High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1997(1) BLJ 757 . Besides the aforesaid two judgments of the High Court learned counsel for the Commission has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors., reported in (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 206. It appears in the case of Jankee Ballabh Pandey(supra) the candidate had used highlighter and had marked the portions of his answer sheet with green and yellow colour marker, which is clearly an identification mark and the Court having appreciated that the candidate had used highlighter marking the answer sheet with green and yellow marking affirmed the decision of the Commission cancelling the marks obtained by the candidate. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha(supra) the candidate has mentioned his roll number and the Court having appreciated that mentioning of the roll number on the answer book was violation of instruction not to mention any foreign material approved cancellation of the marks obtained in the answer book. In the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court having found that the candidate mentioned his name on the answer book contrary to the instruction of the Karnataka Public Service Commission given on the answer book which was detected even before the answer book was sent for evaluation did not accept the plea of the candidate who put his name on the different pages of the answer book for evaluation. 5. In the case in hand, the candidate encircled the question number, put colon dash, comma, inverted comma as also underlined the topic of the answer with or without cross, which is within the exception contained in Clause-3 of the minutes of the Commission dated 1.9.2004, whereunder putting of inverted comma, lining etc. was excluded from being penalized. 5. In the case in hand, the candidate encircled the question number, put colon dash, comma, inverted comma as also underlined the topic of the answer with or without cross, which is within the exception contained in Clause-3 of the minutes of the Commission dated 1.9.2004, whereunder putting of inverted comma, lining etc. was excluded from being penalized. It appears Commission was also appreciative of the aforesaid fact and accordingly, informed the petitioner under letter no.11 dated 3.4.2008, Annexure-7 that his answer book of General Studies, Paper-II bearing Roll No.162508 pertaining to code no.212070 has been found underlined with red ink. 6. In order to cross check the aforesaid contention of the Commission as stated under letter no. 11 dated 3.4.2008, Annexure-7 addressed to the petitioner under Right to Information Act in response to his request for information dated 28.1.2008, Annexure-6 this Court under order no.3 dated 26.03.2009 speaking through S.K. Katriar, J. (as his Lordship then was) called for the answer book of the petitioner of General Studies, Paper-II, which was produced before this Court on 21.05.2009. This Court having seen the answer book of the petitioner under order dated 22.5.2009 speaking through Mihir Kumar Jha, J. observed that perusal of the underlinings made by the petitioner at different places in the answer book while beginning to right an answer or highlighting the point has been made in natural course of writing the answer. Having perused the answer book of the petitioner which is available in sealed cover I am in respectful agreement with the observations of Jha, J. and further observe that the case of the petitioner is within the exception clause contained in Clause-3 of the proceedings of the Commission dated 1.9.2004 whereunder underlining made by the candidate in the answer book was exempted from being penalized in the light of Clause-1(ka) of the important instruction at page-1 of the answer book. In this connection, I may point out that Commission was conscious of the aforesaid aspect of the matter as while giving information under letter no.11 dated 3.4.2008, Annexure-7 informed the petitioner that his answer book of General Studies, Paper-II has been cancelled as the same was found underlined with red ink, which appears not to be the case. In the General Studies, Paper-II answer book of the petitioner there is no underlining in red ink by the petitioner. In the General Studies, Paper-II answer book of the petitioner there is no underlining in red ink by the petitioner. The diagonal red line in the middle of the answers has been put by the examiner who having gone through the answer put diagonal red line in the middle of each answer given by the petitioner to assure himself that he has gone through the answer, as such, I am satisfied that decision of the Commission to grant ‘0’ marks to the petitioner in General Studies, Paper-II as communicated under letter dated 10.12.2007, Annexure-5 is contrary to its proceeding dated 1.9.2004, Annexure-8, which is accordingly, quashed with direction to the Commission to add the marks obtained by the petitioner in General Studies, Paper-II and to publish his result afresh as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Secretary of the Commission. The answer book of the petitioner be returned to the counsel for the B.P.S.C. in sealed cover and receipt obtained in the margin of the order sheet. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.