JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a student of B.Ed. in Rajendra Degree College, Bhogipur, Sarai Inayat, Jhunsi, Allahabad (third respondent), which is affiliated to Chhtrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, has approached this Court seeking a mandamus against respondent no.2 directing him to produce the answer books of the petitioner in certain papers of B.Ed. Examination of the year 2014, in which he had failed or had been awarded marks far below his expectation. The object of obtaining such a direction is that this Court may direct the respondent to carry out a re-evaluation. 2. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University, on the basis of instructions received by him from the University, has submitted that the answer books relating to any particular examination are kept in safe custody for a period of six months only and thereafter, it is weeded out. He further points out that on 9.1.2015 the Examination Controller issued a notification informing all concerned that the process of weeding out of the answer books relating to academic session 2013-14 had commenced and as such, any candidate interested in looking into his answer book, may submit application by 15.1.2015, as thereafter no such request shall be entertained. He submitted that the petitioner did not apply within six months of the declaration of the result nor by 15.1.2015 as per the notification issued by the Examination Controller on 9.1.2015. Consequently, the answer scripts of the petitioner were weeded out. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had failed in these papers and therefore, his result was not declared and thus there was no delay in moving the application for permitting the petitioner to look into the answer scripts. He pointed out that application in this regard was filed by the petitioner on 11.3.2015. 4. On such submission having been made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tiwari was directed to obtain instructions as to whether result of a candidate, who had failed, is declared or not. 5. On the basis of instructions received by him from the University, he has made a categorical statement before this Court that result of all candidates is declared irrespective of the fact whether he has passed the examination or has failed. 6. 5. On the basis of instructions received by him from the University, he has made a categorical statement before this Court that result of all candidates is declared irrespective of the fact whether he has passed the examination or has failed. 6. In such view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to accept the claim of the petitioner that he could not come to know of the fact that he had failed in the examination and thus, there was bonafide reason in moving the application with delay. Since the copies had been weeded out and as such, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.