JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The challenge herein in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the manner of evaluation of the scripts of the petitioner for the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service (HAS) Examination held during the year 2009. 2. In an earlier writ petition, being CWP No.1240 of 2012, titled Swapan Kumar Thakur vs. State Information Commission and another, filed by the petitioner, which was decided on 15.5.2012, the following interim order dated 8.5.2012, was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:- “The petitioner is present in person today. His answer scripts for the competitive examination to HPAS in the subjects of General Studies, Essay in English, Psychology Part-I and Part-II and Public Administration have been shown to him. The grievance of the petitioner is that his answer scripts have not been properly checked and marked. Adverting to the script of General Studies, the petitioner has no grievance with respect to the checking and marking of this paper. He has no grievance with the checking and marking of his answer-sheet in Essay. I also examined this answer script which has been written up to page 4. Same is the response of the petitioner to the answer script of Hindi which has been written up to page-7 of the answer-sheet. He is also satisfied with the checking and marking of his answer script of English which has been written up to page-9. The petitioner submits that his papers in Psychology-I and Psychology-II and Public Administration have not been properly checked and marked. In these circumstances, I direct that the Public Service Commission shall allow inspection to the petitioner of the answer scripts in Psychology Paper-I, Psychology Paper-II and Public Administration. The petitioner will be allowed to take notes with a pencil. For this purpose, the petitioner shall contact the Public Information Officer (P.I.O) on 10th May, 2012 at 3.30 P.M. and shall be allowed inspection till the closing hours and in case need arises, the petitioner shall be granted time next day at 10 A.M. The inspection will be carried out in the presence of a responsible officer of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. No pen and ball pen etc. will be permitted. The petitioner will be allowed to take notes with a pencil. No answer script will be tampered with or marked by the petitioner. No pen and ball pen etc. will be permitted. The petitioner will be allowed to take notes with a pencil. No answer script will be tampered with or marked by the petitioner. Further direction is issued that after inspection, the answer scripts along with the question papers shall be sealed which shall be produced in this Court on the next date of hearing. Should the petitioner so desire, he will be allowed inspection of his other answer scripts. List on 15th May, 2012.” 3. Thereafter, the aforesaid CWP No.1240 of 2012 came to be finally disposed of, vide order dated 15.5.2012, which reads as under:- “Pursuant to the order dated 8th May, 2012, inspection of the answer scripts of the petitioner as directed has been granted by the Public Service Commission on two days i.e. 10th and 11th May, 2012. The petitioner accepts that answer scripts are those which have been written by him. The answer scripts along with papers have been resealed. The petitioner has taken notes with respect to the alleged shortcomings etc. found in the answer scripts. It would not be appropriate for this Court in these proceedings to pronounce upon the defects/discrepancies pointed out. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the evaluation and marking of his answer scripts and urge any other ground available to him in accordance with law in separate proceedings. A direction is issued to the Public Service Commission that the answer scripts and the question papers shall be kept in safe custody under a sealed cover till and so long the other petition filed by the petitioner is not disposed of in accordance with law.” 4. Against the foregoing background, the petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “a) Under the writ of mandamus direction should be issued to Secretary, Public Service Commission to submit the addresses of examiner of Psychology and Public Administration to this Hon’ble High Court so that they can be summoned to this Hon’ble High Court to explain the irregularities in these answersheets. b) Under the writ of mandamus direction should be issued to Public Service Commission to put a stay over the declaration of result of HPAS mains examination 2010. b) Under the writ of mandamus direction should be issued to Public Service Commission to put a stay over the declaration of result of HPAS mains examination 2010. c) On the basis of the testimony of examiner, if the situation permits, grant a writ of quo warranto with regard to the successful candidates (which are 24 in nos.) of HPAS examination 2009. d) On the basis of testimony of examiner, if the situation permits, under the writ of mandamus issuance of direction as to the cancellation of HPAS mains examination 2010 as both the management and the philosophy of management remains same for these two exams.” 5. According to the petitioner, his Psychology-I, Psychology-II, Public Administration-I and Public Administration-II papers have not been properly checked by the examiners appointed by respondent No.1-Commission. The irregularities allegedly committed by the examiners have been elaborated in grounds No.(i) to (xi). 6. In reply, respondent No.1-Commission besides raising preliminary objections that performance of the petitioner in the examination was not up to the required merit and the petition suffers from delay and laches, has refuted the stand of the petitioner that his papers as aforesaid, were not correctly evaluated by the examiners. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. As already noticed, the challenge relates to the process for recruitment to HAS relating to the year 2009. The petition was filed only in the year 2012. The delay is sought to be explained on the grounds that firstly the time was spent on obtaining the requisite information from the concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act and thereafter, the petitioner was not keeping good mental health. However, the fact remains that in the interregnum further processes for recruitment to HAS have also taken place during the years 2010 and 2011 and the process for the year 2012 is stated to be underway. In such circumstances, the delay in filing the petition does not stand explained at all, what to say satisfactorily. It is a matter of common knowledge that information under the Right to Information Act, can be obtained in a time bound manner. Further, there is no material on record to show as to at what point of time the petitioner had applied for such information and when the same was supplied to him. It is a matter of common knowledge that information under the Right to Information Act, can be obtained in a time bound manner. Further, there is no material on record to show as to at what point of time the petitioner had applied for such information and when the same was supplied to him. Still further, there is nothing on record in support of the averment that the petitioner could not file the petition within reasonable time as he was not keeping good mental health. 9. Now while adverting to the merits of the case, it would be seen that the apprehensions, misgivings and grievances raised by the petitioner appear not to be based on facts and are rather in the domain of his own figment of imagination. I venture to say so, as admittedly the petitioner had no grievance as far as the papers of Hindi, English, Essay and General Studies were concerned. The apprehensions were raised only qua optional papers of Psychology-I, Psychology-II, Public Administration-I and Public Administration-II. In case evaluation of four main papers by the same examining authority is without any blemish and challenge, it cannot be said that the alleged irregularities were committed only qua the remaining four papers, as above. 10. Furthermore, the petitioner who had obtained 292 marks was placed in the merit list at Sr. No.225. It is stated that the cut off marks for the interview were 493, the difference being of 201 marks. In such situation, it cannot be remotely expected that even if the petitioner was able to score some more marks in the aforesaid papers, his performance would have come up to the mark. 11. The above discussion brings me to hold that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for any interference with the examination process, in which he had competed unsuccessfully, as no lawful cause or basis for any such interference, is made out in this case. 12. Accordingly, the petition, as also pending CMPs, if any, stand disposed of.