JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of the action of the Recruiting Authority i.e. Rajasthan High Court in rejecting the representation made by her for rounding off of the marks in an individual paper in the Main Examination conducted for appointment to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Civil Judge cadre under the provisions of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 ( for short "the Rules"). The petitioner is also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not permitting inspection of the answer book of Law paper-II and refusing to supply the certified copies of the answer books, as applied for in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 ( for short "the Act of 2005"). 2. The facts relevant are that the Recruiting Authority published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up 187 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by way of direct recruitment in Civil Judge cadre under the Rules. Pursuant to the advertisement issued, the petitioner applied for appearance in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2013 ( for short "RJS Examination,2013"). She appeared in the Preliminary Examination and being declared successful therein, appeared in the Main Examination held on 14th & 15th June, 2014. 3. As per the Scheme of the Examination for recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge as provided for under Schedule IV, appended to the Rules, the Main Examination consists of four papers namely; Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II, Language Paper-I (Hindi Essay) and Language-Paper-II (English Essay). The Law Paper I & II carry 100 marks each whereas, the Language Papers-I & II carry 50 marks each. That apart, 35 marks are allocated for interview. It is further provided that after the marks obtained by the candidates in written test have been received, the Recruiting Authority shall call for interview such of them as have obtained a minimum of 35% marks in each of Law papers and 40% marks in aggregate. However, a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category is deemed to be eligible for interview if he has obtained a minimum of 30% marks in each of Law papers and 35% marks in aggregate. 4. However, a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category is deemed to be eligible for interview if he has obtained a minimum of 30% marks in each of Law papers and 35% marks in aggregate. 4. The list of the successful candidates, who were declared qualified for interview was published by the Recruiting Authority on 10th July, 2014. The cut off marks in the category of General (Female) were declared as 140. The petitioner secured 152 marks in aggregate, however, her name was not included in the list of selected candidates inasmuch as, she had secured 34.5 marks in the Law Paper-II out of total marks 100, as against the minimum pass marks 35% prescribed under the Scheme of the Examination. The petitioner made a representation to the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, praying for rounding off of the marks obtained by her in Law Paper-II so also for re-checking and re-evaluation of the answer book of Law Paper-II. The petitioner also applied for supplying her the copies of all the papers wherein she had appeared and further sought information regarding total number of students who have secured marks below 35% in Law Paper-II. It is stated that the petitioner was informed that she had to submit the application under the Act of 2005 in the Format prescribed by the Rajasthan High Court and therefore, she submitted an application to the authority concerned in Format A under the Act of 2005. The petitioner made yet another representation for allowing her to inspect answer book of Law Paper-II. Vide e-mail communication dated 30th July, 2014, the petitioner was informed by the Registrar (Examination) that her request for re-checking of answer book relating to Main Examination for recruitment in Civil Judge cadre, 2013 cannot be acceded to being not provided under the Rules. Regarding the request for rounding off, the petitioner was informed that the rounding off of the marks in answer book of Law Paper-II is not permissible in personam, as rounding off has been applied on total marks of four papers. Hence, this petition. 5. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioner in the petition is that the action of the respondents in not permitting inspection of answer books and refusing to supply the copies thereof is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition. 5. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioner in the petition is that the action of the respondents in not permitting inspection of answer books and refusing to supply the copies thereof is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the information sought for by her is not confidential or sensitive information which could be withheld by the respondents. Regarding the rounding off of the marks of an individual paper, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondents having allowed the rounding off of the marks in aggregate, the rounding off of the marks in individual paper cannot be denied. It is submitted that a candidate, who has secured 139.5 marks in aggregate has been permitted to appear in interview by applying the rounding off of the marks but the petitioner who has secured 152 marks in aggregate, has not qualified for interview inasmuch as, she has secured 34.5 marks in the Law Paper-II and the rounding off is not applied by the respondents in individual paper. According to the petitioner, by applying the method of rounding off of the marks, only in aggregate and not in individual paper, an anomalous situation has been created and thus, the action of the respondent is unreasonable and highly discriminatory. It is submitted that there is no rule which restricts rounding off of the marks in individual paper and therefore, the respondents having applied rounding off in aggregate marks obtained by the candidates, the rounding off of the marks in individual paper needs to be permitted. It is submitted that even in absence of the rule, as per the general practice re-checking and re-evaluation of answer books is always permissible and therefore, the refusal of the prayer for rechecking and re-evaluation by the respondents is not justified. 6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the representation made by the petitioner for retotaling of marks and re-checking of the answer book was placed before the Examination Committee, which in its meeting held on 24th July, 2014, after due deliberation, rejected the same keeping in view the absence of any provision in this regard in the Rules. Regarding the rounding off of the marks in individual paper, it is submitted that the Examination Committee by a resolution adopted in its meeting held on 26th June, 2014 resolved that the marks awarded in each subject of Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II Hindi & English shall first be added and in case, the total marks comes in fraction, it shall be omitted if fraction is less than half and in case, fraction is half or above, the same shall be rounded off to next figure and accordingly, the petitioner was informed that her request for rounding off of marks of individual paper of Law Paper-II cannot be acceded to. Regarding the inspection of the answer books and supply of copies thereof, it is submitted that the request made was not acceded to by the Examination Committee in absence of any provision in this regard under the Rules. 7. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that rounding off of the marks having been permitted by the Recruiting Authority in aggregate marks without there being any provision under the Rules, the benefit of rounding off of the marks cannot be denied to the candidates who have not been able to secure minimum pass marks in each paper and thus, the action of the respondents in not permitting the rounding off of marks in individual paper on the ground that there is no provision in this regard under the Rules is absolutely unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that the rounding off should not be permitted at all but if it is permitted, its application cannot be restricted to the aggregate marks only and therefore, rounding off must be permitted in individual paper as well. Learned counsel submitted that the rounding off of the marks in aggregate has created a situation where a candidate belonging to the category General (Female), who has secured 139.5 marks and failed to secure the cut off marks i.e. 140 marks, shall stand qualified for interview whereas the candidate like the petitioner, who has secured 152 marks in aggregate, shall stand deprived from appearing in interview, merely because, she has secured 34.5 marks in individual paper and the rounding off is not applied in individual paper according to the decision taken by the Examination Committee. Learned counsel would submit that the action of the Recruiting Authority in not permitting the rounding off of marks in individual paper whereas, the rounding off has been permitted in aggregate marks, is avowedly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr.", (2011) 8 SCC 108 and "Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemlatha & Ors.", (2012) 8 SCC, 568 , and a single Judge decision of this court in the matter of "Jitendra Kumar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr.", (S.B.C.Writ Petition No. 2937/13, decided on 3.7.14) . Regarding the action of the respondents in refusing to permit the inspection of the evaluated answer books and supply of the copies thereof, learned counsel submitted that right to information under the provisions of the Act of 2005 includes right of a candidate appearing in the examination to inspect his evaluated answer books or taking certified copies thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the Recruiting Authority, an examining body conducting the examination for recruitment to the posts in the Civil Judge cadre, is neither 'intelligence' nor 'security' organisation and therefore, cannot claim exemption under Section 24 of the Act of 2005. Learned counsel submitted that the evaluation of the answer book being information under Act of 2005, inspection thereof is permissible even in absence of any provision incorporated under the Rules. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.", (2011) 8 SCC, 497 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.", (2011) 8 SCC, 497 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in reply to the writ petition noticed as above, submitted that the decision taken by the Examination Committee in terms that the marks awarded in each subject of Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II, Hindi & English shall first be added and in case, the total marks comes in fraction, it shall be omitted if fraction is less than half and in case, fraction is half or above, the same shall be rounded off to next figure, is just and reasonable. Learned counsel submitted that the rounding off of marks of the individual paper cannot be permitted inasmuch as, it may create a situation where the marks of a candidate may increase by 2 marks which is bound to disturb the entire merit of the candidates. Learned counsel submitted that the cut off marks declared for the category General (Female) are 140 and it is not the petitioner that any of the candidates having failed to secure minimum pass marks in aggregate i.e. 40% has been declared qualified for interview and therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Public Service Commission's case (supra) does not help the petitioner in any manner. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the nature of ongoing selection process as envisaged by the Rules and bearing of the result of written examination on the eventual selection of the candidates, the request made by the petitioner for inspection of the answer books and supply of certified copies thereof, has rightly been declined by the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the supply of such information during the selection process would undermine the confidentiality thereof and therefore, the request made by the petitioner has rightly not been entertained by the Recruiting Authority. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter stands covered by a Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Shanu Goyal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." (D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 11708/13, decided on 8.7.13) . Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter stands covered by a Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Shanu Goyal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." (D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 11708/13, decided on 8.7.13) . Learned counsel submitted that after the selection process is over, the request, if any, made by the petitioner for inspection of the answer books, shall be dealt with by the authority concerned appropriately. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record as also the resolutions adopted by the Examination Committee produced for perusal of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents during the course of arguments. 10. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions of the parties, a close look at the Scheme of Examination envisaged under the Rules would be appropriate. 11. Indubitably, the recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, a State Service, comprising of the cadres of District Judge, Senior Civil Judge and Civil Judge is regulated by the Rules, framed by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with Rajasthan Public Service Commission and High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 233, 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 12. Rule 20 of the Rules which delineate the Scheme of Examination for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge cadre, provides that the competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge shall be conducted by the Recruiting Authority in two stages i.e. Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the Scheme specified in the Schedule IV. The marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination who are declared qualified for admission to Main Examination are not counted for determining their final merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination shall be 15 times the total number of vacancies category wise to be filled in the year but in the said range, all the candidates who secured the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by Recruiting Authority for any lower range will be admitted to the Main Examination. 13. As per clause C of the Schedule IV appended to the Rules, the Main Examination consists of four subjects viz. Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II, Language-(i) Paper-I Hindi Essay (ii) Paper-II English Essay and Interview. 13. As per clause C of the Schedule IV appended to the Rules, the Main Examination consists of four subjects viz. Law Paper-I, Law Paper-II, Language-(i) Paper-I Hindi Essay (ii) Paper-II English Essay and Interview. Law Paper-I and II carry 100 marks each and Language Paper-I & II carry 50 marks each whereas, 35 marks are allocated for Interview. Regarding the eligibility for interview of the candidates, who have appeared in the Main Examination, it is specifically provided that after the marks obtained by the candidates in written test have been received, the Recruiting Authority shall call for interview such of them as have obtained a minimum 35% marks in each of Law papers and 40% marks in aggregate. However, candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe are deemed to be eligible for interview if they have obtained minimum of 30% marks in each of Law papers and 35% marks in aggregate. 14. Thus, a conjoint reading of Rule 20 and the Scheme of Examination set out in the Schedule IV of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that in order to qualify for interview, a candidate has to obtain the minimum pass marks in each of the papers and in aggregate in the Main Examination as specified. Indisputably, while emphasising the requirement of the minimum pass marks in each of the papers and in aggregate, there is no provision incorporated which empowers the Recruiting Authority for relaxation in minimum pass marks so as to make a candidate eligible for interview who has failed to secure the minimum pass marks prescribed. 15. Coming to the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it is to be noticed that the petitioner, who has failed to secure the minimum pass marks i.e. 35% as prescribed in Law Paper-II, is claiming rounding off of the marks in individual paper of Law Paper-II, on the ground that the Recruiting Authority having permitted the rounding off of the marks in aggregate, cannot deny the benefits of the rounding off to the candidates in individual paper. To put in other words, the petitioner is not questioning the action of the Recruiting Authority in permitting the rounding off of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidate without there being any provision under the Rules permitting such rounding off rather, the equality is claimed on the ground that if the rounding off of aggregate marks is permitted by the Recruiting Authority notwithstanding absence of any provision in this regard in the Rules, for the parity of reasons, the rounding off of the marks in individual paper must also be permitted. 16. In Orissa Public Service Commission's case (supra), heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while examining the legality of the order passed by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, permitting rounding off of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates appearing in Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking into consideration the mandate of Rule 24 of Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 providing for determination of number of candidates for interview, prescribing minimum pass marks in aggregate and each paper of Main Written Examination, observed: "10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation." (emphasis added) 17. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation." (emphasis added) 17. In Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court holding that learned Single Judge was right in permiting rounding off of marks of a candidate so as to make him eligible for admission to PG course, relying upon the decision in Orissa Public Service Commission's case (supra), observed that when eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to inasmuch as, any dilution or tampering with it, will work injustice to all other candidates and accordingly, held that the rounding off of the aggregate marks is impermissible. 18. Thus, as per the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in absence of any provision in the Rules permitting rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement, is not permissible. 19. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note that it is not the case set by the petitioner that any of the candidates belonging to the category General (Female) who have not secured minimum pass marks in aggregate, has been declared eligible for interview as a result of rounding off of the aggregate marks. The total marks of all the papers of the written examination being 300, the minimum pass marks in aggregate being 40% comes to 120, whereas the cut off marks for the category General (Female) are declared as 140 and therefore, the question of any candidate in the General (Female) category being permitted to appear for interview by relaxing the requirement of minimum pass marks in aggregate, does not arise. 20. As noticed herein above, in the instant petition, the petitioner has not questioned the legality of the rounding off of marks in aggregate permitted by the Recruiting Authority and therefore, this court is not inclined to enter into the question whether the rounding off of the aggregate marks could have been permitted by the Recruiting Authority or not. 20. As noticed herein above, in the instant petition, the petitioner has not questioned the legality of the rounding off of marks in aggregate permitted by the Recruiting Authority and therefore, this court is not inclined to enter into the question whether the rounding off of the aggregate marks could have been permitted by the Recruiting Authority or not. But then, having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, this court is firmly of the opinion that if the claim of the petitioner for rounding off of the marks in individual paper is accepted on the premise that the Recruiting Authority has permitted rounding off of the marks in aggregate, it is bound to create a very strange and complicated situation affecting the fairness of the selection process. Undoubtedly, if the rounding off of marks in individual paper is permitted, the total number of papers in written examination being four, a candidate may have benefit of getting maximum 2 additional marks and thus, may acquire a higher position in the merit vis-a-vis the candidates who have though obtained more marks than such candidates but do not have advantage of additional marks as a result of method of rounding off being applied in individual paper. For example, a candidate who has secured 138 marks in aggregate and secured marks in fraction more than half in all the four papers, shall be entitled for addition of 2 marks as a result of rounding off and thus, he is bound to be placed in merit above the candidate who has secured 139 marks in aggregate but does not have the advantage of additional marks as a result of rounding off of the marks in individual paper being permitted. Obviously, by applying the method of rounding off of marks, the meritorious candidates cannot be permitted to be placed in disadvantageous position. 21. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Recruiting Authority in refusing to apply the method of rounding off of the marks in individual paper of Main Examination cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India warranting interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 22. 22. This takes us to consider the legality of the action of the Recruiting Authority in refusing to permit the petitioner the inspection of the answer books and supplying the copies thereof. As a matter of fact, the question as to entitlement of a candidate to inspect the answer books and obtain the certified copies thereof during ongoing process of selection, is no more res integra. 23. In the matter of "Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors.", (2011) 8 SCC, 781 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after due consideration of the various provisions of Act of 2005, categorically held that the competent authorities under the Act of 2005 will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportion affecting other public interest, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources. The court observed that the information relating to intellectual property, question papers, solutions/ model answers and instructions in regard to any particular examination conducted cannot be disclosed as it would harm competitive position of innumerable third parties taking examination. 24. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India's case (supra) as also the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education's case (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, a Bench of this court in Shanu Goyal's case (supra) while dealing with the grievance of the candidate who had appeared in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission regarding non supply of question paper booklets and answer books, observed: "In view of the emphatic enunciation and the legal proposition as above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that considering the nature of the ongoing selection process as stipulated by the Rules and the bearing of the results of the written examination on the eventual selection of the candidates, the request of the petitioner, as made in the instant petition, ought not to be entertained at this stage. This request, we construe, if allowed, would undermine the confidentiality of the exercise underway, apart from affecting the third party rights. This request, we construe, if allowed, would undermine the confidentiality of the exercise underway, apart from affecting the third party rights. Besides, the very basis of the relief sought for by the petitioner is speculative i.e. her perception that her performance has not been correctly evaluated for which there is no tangible basis for this Court to act upon." 25. Thus, keeping in view the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, the action of the Recruiting Authority in refusing to permit the petitioner the inspection of answer books and supplying the copies thereof during the ongoing selection process, cannot be said to be violative of the provisions of the Act of 2005. 26. But then, after the selection process is over, the Recruiting Authority is under an obligation to consider the application made by the petitioner for inspection of the answer books and supply of copies thereof afresh, in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 2005 and keeping in view the law propounded in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed herein above. 27. In the view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the action of the Recruiting Authority in declining rounding off of the marks in individual papers of the Main Examination conducted for appointment to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Civil Judge cadre under the Rules, is dismissed. However, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to extent of permitting him to inspect answer books and supply of the copies thereof, is disposed of in terms that the application made by the petitioner in this regard shall be considered by the Recruiting Authority afresh, after completion of the selection process, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******