Judgment :- D.MURUGESAN, J. 1. The writ petition poses the following questions for our consideration: (i) Whether in the absence of Regulations enabling a candidate to seek for reevaluation, the Union Public Service Commission is bound to re-valuate the answer scripts at the request of a candidate who had taken the examination? (ii) Whether the petitioner could plead the violation of Article 14 on the ground that in the year 2001, the Union Public Service Commission had re-valuated the answer script of one Nitin Verma, even though there is no provision for such re-evaluation? 2. The writ petition arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner wrote the Civil Services Examination, 2010 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (for short, "the UPSC"). The preliminary examination consisted of two papers viz., (a) Optional subject and (b) General studies. The petitioner opted to take the examination in the subject Zoology. After the examination, he was awarded the following marks: He was called for interview and he was awarded 215/300 marks. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had a very good academic record right from schooling to medical graduation and he is a gold medalist. He had secured 93% in Class X examination with a total of 928/1000, particularly 149/150 marks in Biology subject. He had secured 98% in Class XII examination with a total of 1171/1200, particularly 200/200 marks in Chemistry subject, 199/200 marks in Physics subject and 99/100 in Zoology subject. He had also received the Honble Chief Ministers special scholarship and he was awarded the Best Outgoing Student (2003-09) in the medical graduation and received gold medals in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and General Surgery and secured distinction in Pharmacology, Pathology, Otorhinolaryngology. After completion of medical graduation and despite the fact that he had obtained distinction, he had chosen to opt for Civil Services Examination and therefore he joined a leading coaching institute (Evolution) at New Delhi, where he bagged the first rank in all the Zoology tests with high marks. It is the case of the petitioner therefore that the award of 86/300 marks and 111/300 marks in Zoology I and II subject by the UPSC is far below his expectations. It is the case of the petitioner therefore that the award of 86/300 marks and 111/300 marks in Zoology I and II subject by the UPSC is far below his expectations. Hence, he made an application under the Right to Information Act to the UPSC for re-evaluation and re-totalling and to verify whether all the additional answer scripts used by the petitioner were in tact and to ensure that the answer scripts used by him did not get mingled with other candidates answer scripts. The said application was rejected on the ground that the information sought by him cannot be furnished. Being aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, which was also rejected. A further appeal was also filed before the appellate authority constituted under the Act and the same is pending. His further grievance is that some of the candidates ranked 5th, 6th, 9th and 28th had only secured lesser marks in the subjects than himself. However, they were ranked in the top and he was ranked 395th only because those candidates had secured very high marks in Zoology subject and he had secured very low marks. Under these circumstances, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the UPSC to revise his rank in the Civil Services Examination, 2010 after verification and re-assessment of Zoology I & II subject and fix his name in the appropriate rank in the merit list. As the said application was dismissed by the order dated 8.8.2011, he is constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in spite of the fact that there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Regulations, in the year 2001, such re-evaluation was made in the case of one Nitin Verma and the said candidate who was initially ranked 278th, after re-evaluation, was placed in 28th rank. Hence, the denial of the request of the petitioner for re-evaluation is arbitrary. Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that in any case this Court would be competent to call for the answer scripts and the same should be made available to the petitioner for perusal and thereafter this Court should direct an individual expert in the subject to re-value the answer scripts. Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that in any case this Court would be competent to call for the answer scripts and the same should be made available to the petitioner for perusal and thereafter this Court should direct an individual expert in the subject to re-value the answer scripts. As the entire academic career of the petitioner has been excellent, the petitioner has got a reasonable apprehension that his answer scripts in optional subject have not been properly evaluated. 4. Controverting the above submissions, Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the UPSC would submit that in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be ordered. He would submit that the answer scripts have been evaluated by the experts who have vast experience and the fact that number of candidates have obtained higher marks in Zoology subject would show that the answer scripts have been correctly evaluated, particularly in the absence of any allegation against the examiner for having given lesser marks to the petitioner alone. 5. We have considered the above submissions. 6. Point No.(i): The question as to whether, in the absence of a provision in the Regulations for re-evaluation, a candidate who had taken the examination is entitled for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, came up for consideration far back in the year 1984 before the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, (1984) 4 SCC 27 . In that case, the Apex Court was considering the validity of the rules denying the right of a candidate to seek for re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Repelling the challenge to such Regulations, the Apex Court observed as follows: “(14.)....It would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the Legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the Legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation making power conferred on the delegate by the statute....” The Apex Court further has held that in the absence of any provision in the Regulations for re-evaluation, the denial of the request for re-evaluation would not amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court therefore held that the denial of re-evaluation would not constitute denial of fair play in the evaluation. The very same question again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, (2004) 6 SCC 714 . The Apex Court, referring to the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education case, once again reiterated the law in paragraph-7 as follows: "(7.)...The main question which arises for consider is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer book 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 order to hold so, the Apex Court quoted the following reason in paragraph-8, which reads as follows: "(8.) Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for reevaluation of their answer books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in reevaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." 7. In Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another, (2004) 13 SCC 383 , the Apex Court reiterated the very same law once again. In Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599 , the Apex Court held as follows: "(32.) The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the judgment impugned should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority." The very same view has been again reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 . Recently, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7024 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011 (The Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Examination, CBSE and others v. Khushboo Shrivastava and others), after referring to the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education case, has once again reiterated the very same law. 8. There is no controversy that the Regulations relating to the Civil Services Examination do not provide a provision for re-evaluation. In view of the binding precedents, the petitioner cannot seek for re-evaluation. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had a very good academic record and particularly he had secured very high marks in Zoology subject. On the basis of such pleading, can it be presumed that he had performed well in the optional subject and in spite of such performance he had been given lesser marks? This argument of Mr.Vijay Narayan is on hypothetical basis. The petitioner may be academically sound, particularly in Zoology subject while in school and college days, which does not mean that he had written well in the optional subject in the Civil Services Examination. Acceptance of such argument would be only on presumption. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner alone had been singled out by the examiner for extraneous reasons to award lesser marks when the other candidates had been given higher marks. The Court should also be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters, particularly in preference to those assessed by professional men possessing expertise in the respective subjects and rich experience in evaluation. Civil Services is essential for the functioning of the Government. A well functioning civil services helps to foster good policy making and effective service delivery. Civil Services is essential for the functioning of the Government. A well functioning civil services helps to foster good policy making and effective service delivery. To provide the candidates to the Government for such service, the UPSC has devised a scheme with the necessary element of finality in examination. As per the Regulations of the UPSC, where large number of candidates are taking the examination and the conduct of examination is a recurring process, the examination must reach its finality and the selected candidate must be made available for appointment at the earliest. It is also to be kept in mind that if inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative rankings etc., of the candidates besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and the time involved in the process. In the event such Regulations are made, the same cannot be diluted by Courts in directing re-evaluation, as such exercise of power would unsettle the examination and would not be in the interest of large number of candidates who have been declared successful. It must also be noted that the petitioner has not questioned the Regulations without a provision for re-evaluation. Even otherwise, challenge to similar Regulations denying re-evaluation has been negatived by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education case. Hence, the point no.(i) is answered against the petitioner. 9. Point No.(ii): So far as the second issue is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that one Nitin Verma was shown as 278th rank in the merit list. On his request, the answer scripts were re-valuated and after re-evaluation, he was ranked in 28th place. In such circumstance, the respondent-UPSC should adopt the same procedure in allowing the request of the petitioner for re-evaluation. In our opinion, the said argument is untenable and cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the absence of any Regulations, the Court cannot issue a direction to the authorities to violate their own Regulations and order re-evaluation. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel has drawn our attention that the above factual aspect has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel has drawn our attention that the above factual aspect has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. In our opinion, even assuming that the answer script of one candidate was reevaluated in the year 2001, such re-evaluation would be in contravention of the Regulations and such re-evaluation cannot be recognised by this Court as valid in law for issuance of a similar direction. If such direction is issued, it would amount to directing the authorities to commit a further mistake de hors the Regulations. A writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and the corresponding obligation in the State. Merely because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated by a Court of law. There cannot be an equality in illegality as well. In these circumstances, the submission of Mr.Vijay Narayan deserves only to be rejected. (See Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1978 SC 329; U.P. Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Santraj Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 82 ; State of Orissa v. Prasanna Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129 ). For the said reason, we are not inclined to accept the submission on discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we answer the issue in the negative. 10. The above discussions take us to the incidental question as to whether after the Right to Information Act, the UPSC can deny the information relating to the answer scripts of the petitioner. In our opinion, this submission is made on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the examinees have a right under the Right to Information Act to examine their answer scripts. The said question requires no consideration in this writ petition, as admittedly the request of the petitioner for such information had been denied by the two authorities of the respondent-UPSC under the Right to Information Act and a further appeal to the appellate authority under the Act is also pending. The petitioner would be entitled to pursue his remedy under the Act before the appellate authority in the pending appeal. The petitioner would be entitled to pursue his remedy under the Act before the appellate authority in the pending appeal. For that reason, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to perusal of the answer scripts produced before this Court as per our earlier direction. 11. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has no right to seek for re-evaluation and the relief of a direction for such re-evaluation cannot be ordered. The Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly dismissed the petition, which order requires no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.