ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the action of respondent No. 2 in not granting marks to answer to question No. 10(iii). It is prayed that appropriate marks be given to the answer to the said question and; if petitioner succeeds, he be placed in the merit list. It is further prayed that an appointment order be issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement in the year 2010 for filling vacancies of Class-II and Class-Ill cadre. The petitioner submitted her candidature and appeared in the examination. 3. As per result of main examination, the petitioner secured total 1197 marks and was kept in the supplementary list prepared for the post of Cooperative Inspector/Assistant Extension Officer. It is urged that one Jaishree Rathore who belongs to SC community obtained 1199 marks and has been selected for the said post. Copy of result and marks-sheet are filed as Annexure P/3 to P/5. 4. Since petitioner performed well and did not get marks as per her expectation, she obtained answer-sheet under the Right to Information Act. On perusal of the answer-sheet, she revealed that her one answer to question No. 10(iii) has been checked but no marks have been given on that answer. By placing reliance on this answer-sheet Annexure P/6, Shri Arvind Shrivastava contended that this question is of 15 marks. Even if petitioner gets two marks, she will be selected. Shri Shrivastava also relied upon the order-sheet dated 26-11-2015 whereby this Court has given a finding after perusing the original answer-sheet that marks for answer No. 10(iii) have not been awarded to the petitioner. 5. This Court on 24-2-2016 directed the respondent No. 2 to keep a subject expert present on the next date of hearing for the purpose of evaluation of that answer. In obedience of this order, Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Professor (Hindi) appeared as a subject expert on behalf of the respondent No. 2. This Court directed him to evaluate answer of question No. 10(iii) and give appropriate marks out of total 15 marks earmarked for this question. Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra submitted his report on 28-3-2016 and gave seven marks in answer to question No. 10(iii) out of 15 marks. This Court directed him to evaluate answer of question No. 10(iii) and give appropriate marks out of total 15 marks earmarked for this question. Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra submitted his report on 28-3-2016 and gave seven marks in answer to question No. 10(iii) out of 15 marks. The Registry is directed to keep this report dated 28-3-2016 in the file of this case. 6. On the strength of this, Shri Shrivastava contended that petitioner’s merit position be appropriately enhanced and direction be issued for her appointment. 7. Prayer is opposed by Shri Prashant Singh by contending that if any illegality has been committed by PSC, the petitioner can file a suit for damages. No legal, vested or constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. In addition, it is urged that in absence of any provision regarding revaluation, this Court cannot undertake such exercise. 8. No other point is raised by learned counsel for the parties. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The respondents filed document dated 10-3-2016 and admitted that one question of petitioner was not evaluated and marks have not been given. It is stated in the letter that the examination result of petitioner is adversely affected. The Commission has taken this error very seriously and debarred the erring official Dr. R. P. Gangwar, Associate Professor (Hindi) for further work of valuation. 11. Shri Prashant Singh has taken pains to contend that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed. However, I do not see any merit in this argument. (Right of consideration is a fundamental right of a candidate flowing from Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This includes a right of fair consideration. In my considered opinion, the petitioner’s aforesaid right is infringed because of improper valuation by the respondent No. 2. Thus, I am unable to hold that petitioner’s fundamental/legal right is not infringed. In 1965(3) SCR 536 , Dwarkanath v. ITO, the Apex Court considered the ambit and scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that the article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. In 1965(3) SCR 536 , Dwarkanath v. ITO, the Apex Court considered the ambit and scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that the article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression “nature”, for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Court to mould the relief to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government into a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself. This judgment is followed by Supreme Court in 1989(2) SCC 691 , Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V. R. Rudani and others. The Apex Court held that Article 226 confers power on the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental right as well as non-fundamental right (Para 20). The respondent No. 2 is under a constitutional and statutory obligation to conduct the selection in a fair and just manner. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 has failed to fulfil said obligation. So far argument of Shri Prashant Singh relating to directions about revaluation is concerned, it is profitable to note that a Division Bench of this Court has considered this aspect by taking note of relevant Supreme Court judgments on the subject. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 has failed to fulfil said obligation. So far argument of Shri Prashant Singh relating to directions about revaluation is concerned, it is profitable to note that a Division Bench of this Court has considered this aspect by taking note of relevant Supreme Court judgments on the subject. Justice R. V. Raveendran, C. J. (As His Lordship then was) summarised the principles in regard to revaluation in 2005(2) M.P.L.J. 221 , Pranshu lndurkhya v. State of M. P. and others. Para 7(b) reads as under; “7(b) Where the rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court will not normally direct the production of the answer scripts for its scrutiny or order revaluation. But in rare and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence, the Court may direct revaluation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) In 2000(2) M.P.L.J. 108 = 2000(1) MPHT 486 , Rajesh Kumar Tripathi v. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, Justice Dipak Misra (As His Lordship then was) expressed his concern and opined that every examiner must remember that he is a ‘Guru’ and he is not holding ordinary job. He builds the future generation at a primary stage, and hence, it should be his primary duty that he elevates himself to the pedestal of ‘Guru’ and perform his ‘Dharma’. This Court expressed its concern that despite repeated directions, the Board could not achieve perfection which is necessary to ensure proper valuation. In Rajesh Kumar Tripathi (supra), while deciding W. P. No. 4473/1999 this Court found that some questions were not valued at all, hence, direction was given for revaluation of answer papers by an expert to be appointed by the Board. Precisely, in the instant case, this Court has followed the same course. The Apex Court in 2010(6) SCC 759 , Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another considered the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Sharwan Kumar v. DG of Health Services, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 632, K. C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 , Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India, (1991) 2 SCC 179 , State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 632, K. C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 , Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India, (1991) 2 SCC 179 , State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 594, State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1 SCC 175 , Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258 , Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 . After considering the said judgments, it is held that the Court should not generally direct revaluation. Thus, it is clear that in routine manner, such directions cannot be issued. However, in cases where negligence is writ large and manifest on the face of the record, such directions can be issued. This Court cannot shut its eyes from glaring illegality which may deprive an otherwise eligible candidate from fruits of selection. In the present days of cut throat competition deprivation of a single mark or even less than that may deprive a candidate from fruits of selection. Thus valuation must be done meticulously. 12. In view of aforesaid analysis and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it apposite to allow this petition and direct the respondents to include seven marks in answer to question No. 10(iii). After adding these seven marks, petitioner’s position in the merit list be appropriately changed. Putting it differently, after adding seven marks aforesaid, the petitioner be given appropriate placement in the merit list. If any candidate who has secured less marks then the petitioner is selected and appointed, the PSC shall send the revised merit list to the State Government for considering petitioner’s appointment on appropriate post. In that case, respondent No. 1 shall- ensure that petitioner is given appointment on appropriate post as per her merit. If petitioner is otherwise eligible and respondent No. 1 decides to appoint him as per her merit, she be given appointment from the date her contemporaries were so appointed. She will be entitled to get the benefit of notional seniority and notional fixation of pay from due date. As per Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 the seniority of petitioner be also fixed in the event of her appointment. She will be entitled to get the benefit of notional seniority and notional fixation of pay from due date. As per Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 the seniority of petitioner be also fixed in the event of her appointment. This entire exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order. The Registry of this Court is directed to comply with the direction issued in para 5. Petition is allowed. No cost.