JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner had appeared in Second Year Civil Engineering Examination conducted by the Board of Technical Education, U.P. Lucknow. He was declared failed in three subjects. He had looked into the answer scripts under Right to Information Act and whereupon, it transpired that in respect of several answers, incorrect marks have been awarded and in some cases, no marks at all have been awarded. He, therefore, claims to have made an application on 31.8.2015 for scrutiny in these papers. The grievance of the petitioner is that the scrutiny has not been carried out so far and hence, he has approached this Court seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to carry out the scrutiny. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents be directed to carry out the scrutiny, as they were supposed to conduct such exercise within one month. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents pointed out that the scrutiny, if any, is to be carried out by the second respondent. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending by issuing notice to the second respondent, as interest of justice would be served in permitting the petitioner to approach the second respondent with a certified copy of this order and a photo copy of the scrutiny application dated 31.8.2015. In that event, the second respondent shall examine the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and take appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of next one month. In case the second respondent comes to the conclusion that for some reason, scrutiny cannot be carried out, he shall pass speaking order. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.