JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. ADMIT As short question is involved, the appeal is taken for final disposal forthwith, by consent. Counsel for respondents waive notice for final disposal of the appeal. This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge, dated 11th January, 2013, in CWP No.3820 of 2012-B. The challenge, essentially, is to the direction given by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph-11 of the impugned decision which reads thus:- "Thus it manifests that 'the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation', yet it has not been laid down as rule of law that such power cannot at all be exercised by the Court in a fit case." 3. ARGUMENT of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has misread the observation, contained in Paragraph-26 of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur & Another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 . Learned Single Judge has glossed over the exposition contained in Paragraphs-24 and 25 of the same judgment. Indisputably, the exposition in Paragraphs-24 and 25 of the above-said judgment, is that, the question about the re-evaluation of answer book is no more in res intgra as has been observed in the earlier two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education & Another versus Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth & Others, (1984) 4 SCC 27 and Pramod Kumar Srivastava versus Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 714 . The Apex Court has made it amply clear that in absence of any express provision for re-evaluation, the Court should be loath in directing re-evaluation of the answer papers. The observation found in Paragraph-26 is reiteration of the said legal position stated in the above-said two decisions referred to in Paragraphs-24 and 25 in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission (supra). 4. WE are in agreement with the argument of the appellant that re-evaluation of the answer paper cannot be directed by the Court in absence of express provision in that behalf. 4. WE are in agreement with the argument of the appellant that re-evaluation of the answer paper cannot be directed by the Court in absence of express provision in that behalf. The argument of the respondent, however, revolves around the observation made in Paragraph-26 of the Supreme Court decision which has been adverted to in the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the Court has noted that the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation. This observation does not mean that the Court can as a rule direct re-evaluation sans an express provision regarding re- evaluation of the answer papers in the concerned Act, Rules or Regulations, as the case may be. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds. The direction, contained in Paragraph-11 of the impugned judgment, is set aside. 5. COUNSEL for the respondents submits that in view of this order, the writ petition, bearing CWP No.3820 of 2012-B, may also be disposed of being infructuous. Ordered accordingly.