JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel representing the State of Bihar and learned Counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. 2. The petitioner had appeared for annual secondary examination in the year 1998, held by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’) as a student of Harishankar Nayak High School, Mirchaibadi, Katihar, with his Roll No. 0155 and Roll Code 11425. He was declared ‘fail’ since he could not clear mathematics and physics papers. He had scored 11 marks in physics and 13 marks in mathematics. There is no dispute up to this. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that he had applied for ‘re-evaluation’ of his answer scripts of the said two papers, along with prescribed fee before the Board. The Board re-evaluated the two papers and revised the marks in aforesaid two papers to 33 marks in mathematics in place of 13 and 15 marks in physics in place of 11, whereafter he was declared ‘pass’ in the said two papers and his result was accordingly published, showing him pass in second division. It is his also claim that the modified result of the petitioner was sent by the Board to the Headmaster of the school, through letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, enclosing therewith the revised/corrected original mark sheet, bearing no. 66438, dated 20.08.1998. It is his further case that the Board had directed the Headmaster of the school to make necessary correction in the cross-list sent to the school and intimate the result to the petitioner. The said letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, and the original mark sheet, bearing no. ‘66438’ have been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to the writ application. It is also his case that the Headmaster of the School made necessary corrections in the records, handed over the said mark sheet to the petitioner and issued School Leaving Certificate, on the basis of which he got himself admitted in Intermediate Course. He appeared for the Intermediate examination in the year 2000, in which he was declared pass. The petitioner thereafter pursued B.A. (Hons.) Course, which he cleared in second division, on the basis of examination held by B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. The petitioner completed his LL.B. course also, in the year 2009 and has passed Teachers’ Eligibility Test (T.E.T.). 4. He appeared for the Intermediate examination in the year 2000, in which he was declared pass. The petitioner thereafter pursued B.A. (Hons.) Course, which he cleared in second division, on the basis of examination held by B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. The petitioner completed his LL.B. course also, in the year 2009 and has passed Teachers’ Eligibility Test (T.E.T.). 4. For all these 11 years, the petitioner did not take any step to obtain his original matriculation certificate, according to the petitioner’s own showing. In the year 2009, he approached the School demanding matriculation certificate, which was denied on the ground that it was not available. He thereafter approached the Board, where also he could not get any positive result. When he invoked the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, as to why his original certificate and revised mark sheet were not issued to him, the petitioner received a communication, dated 17.09.2009, issued by the Deputy Secretary -cum-Public Information Officer of the Board that the petitioner had appeared for the said annual secondary examination, held in the year 1998, with Roll No. 0155 and Roll Code 1425, but was declared ‘fail’ and, therefore, it was not possible for the Board to issue matriculation certificate. 5. The said communication, dated 17.09.2009, is being assailed in the present writ application, by seeking its quashing and issuance of a direction to respondent nos. 3 to 11 to issue revised mark sheet and original certificate of the petitioner of annual secondary examination, 1998, after making correction in the marks of the said two subjects, namely, mathematics and physics, on the basis of marks obtained by him on re-evaluation of his answer scripts of the said two papers. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to produce answer scripts of the petitioner before this Court for their perusal and verification of marks obtained by him after re-evaluation. Adequate compensation has also been demanded for physical and mental agony and monetary loss, which the petitioner has been made to suffer, because of illegal and arbitrary action of the authorities of the Board. 6. Before I consider rival pleadings and contentions of the contesting parties, I must record that the relief to produce answer scripts of the examination held in the year 1998 cannot be entertained by this Court in the present proceeding. 7. 6. Before I consider rival pleadings and contentions of the contesting parties, I must record that the relief to produce answer scripts of the examination held in the year 1998 cannot be entertained by this Court in the present proceeding. 7. A plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that since he had been approaching the authorities and the Consumer Redressal forum, the respondents-Board ought to have preserved the answer scripts. This plea is not acceptable since, admittedly, the petitioner, as per his own showing, approached the School and the Board, for matriculation certificate in the year 2009, more than 11 (eleven) years after he had appeared for the annual secondary examination. 8. At this stage itself, I take note of the conflicting stand taken by the petitioner. On the one hand, the petitioner is seeking direction for supply of, inter alia, original revised mark sheet; whereas, he has brought on record by way of annexures, a copy of the mark sheet, which, according to him, is the copy of original revised mark sheet. 9. The Board has seriously disputed the plea taken by the petitioner. It is their plea that the petitioner was declared fail, which fact has been re-verified with the available records and tabulation register with the Board, which re-affirms that the petitioner had failed in the annual secondary examination held in the year 1998. The plea that on application being filed by the petitioner, his answer scripts of the two papers, i.e. mathematics and physics, were re-evaluated, has been categorically denied by the Board. It has been stated that Regulation 20 (b) of Chapter V of Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964, permits only scrutiny of the marks obtained by a candidate in his/her answer scripts. There is no provision for re-evaluation and, therefore, there is no question of answer scripts of the petitioner having been re-evaluated by the Board. 10. There is specific denial by the Board to the averment made in the writ application that the letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998 and the revised/correct original mark sheet, bearing no. 66438, dated 20.08.1998, were ever issued to the petitioner by the Board. 11. It has been stated that the said documents, copies of which have been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to the writ application, are not genuine and have not been genuinely issued by the Board. 12. 66438, dated 20.08.1998, were ever issued to the petitioner by the Board. 11. It has been stated that the said documents, copies of which have been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to the writ application, are not genuine and have not been genuinely issued by the Board. 12. It has also been asserted that there is nothing worth evidence to show that the petitioner had ever applied for ‘re-evaluation’. 13. Referring to the letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, it is the plea of the Board that such communications are, in common parlance, called ‘dupattia’. Its serial number has been given as 4351 at the top on the right side of the said communication. It is the plea of the Board that ‘dupattia’ with serial no. 4201-4400 was allocated to Jehanabad Section and in that circumstance, there is no eventuality that any correspondence upon dupattia, allocated to Jehanabad Section, could be made to the petitioner, who had been a student from Katihar district. Referring to the mark sheet, which has been enclosed in the writ application, it has been averred in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Board, that the said document is also frivolous and fabricated as the same has been shown to have been issued under serial no. 66438; whereas, mark sheets with serial no. 66401-66500 had been allocated to the district of West Champaran by the Store Section of the Board. 14. This is to be noted that the petitioner had filed a Consumer Dispute Case No. 92 of 2009 against the impugned communication, dated 17.09.2009 before the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Katihar. The Board had taken specific plea that no such mark sheet or letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, was ever issued. The Forum, however, allowed the claim with the passing of the order, dated 23.02.2012, with a direction to the respondents to issue revised mark sheet with original certificate to the petitioner. The Board thereafter had preferred appeal, giving rise to Appeal No. 283 of 2012, before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Patna, which was dismissed by an order, dated 11.01.2013, thus, confirming the order of the District Forum. The Board thereafter had preferred appeal, giving rise to Appeal No. 283 of 2012, before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Patna, which was dismissed by an order, dated 11.01.2013, thus, confirming the order of the District Forum. Subsequently, by an order, dated 07.10.2014, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, on a revision preferred by the Board, set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Forum on the ground that the petitioner was not a consumer of the Board and, therefore, his grievance could not have been entertained by the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Katihar 15. The Board has filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 07.07.2017, stating therein that the Board, during the pendency of this application, considered it proper to verify the matter from the end of the said school. The Headmaster of the school was asked to verify the claim of the petitioner as to whether the said letter (dupattia), bearing serial no. 4351 No. C/1998 and letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, and the mark sheet, bearing no. 66438, had been ever sent to the school from the Board and whether the said letter and/or the mark sheet had ever been handed over by the school to the petitioner. It is the case of the Board that in response to the query so made by the Board, the Headmaster of the school, through letter no. 127, dated 07.07.2017, has informed that the petitioner had received his mark sheet in which he had been shown ‘fail’ and the so-called corrected mark sheet and dupattia, under question, were never handed over to the petitioner by the school. It has been reiterated that there is no document to show that the petitioner had ever applied for re-evaluation. 16. After having given my anxious consideration over the submissions advanced and pleadings on records of the parties, I am of the view that the relief, as sought in the present writ application, cannot be granted for the following reasons. (i) The entire claim of the petitioner is based on the letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, bearing serial no. 4351 (dupattia) and copy of the revised mark sheet showing the petitioner to have passed, issued by the Board, bearing no. 66438. (i) The entire claim of the petitioner is based on the letter no. 865, dated 20.08.1998, bearing serial no. 4351 (dupattia) and copy of the revised mark sheet showing the petitioner to have passed, issued by the Board, bearing no. 66438. The genuineness of the said documents have been seriously disputed by the Board with specific plea that no such letter and/or mark sheet were ever issued by the Board. Further, on one hand, the petitioner has produced a copy of the revised/correct mark sheet, on the other, he is seeking a direction from this Court to the Board to issue original revised mark sheet. (ii) The petitioner approached the Board after 11 years of publication of annual secondary examination result in the year 1998, in which he claims that he was declared ‘pass’ on re-evaluation of his answer scripts. The basis on which he got admission for higher classes is not known since he was not having with himself the matriculation certificate and the original revised mark sheet, according to him. (iii) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not counter the stand of the Board that there being no provision for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the claim of the petitioner that his answer scripts were re-evaluated. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned action of the Board in writ jurisdiction. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Let the original mark sheet be returned to learned Counsel for the petitioner.