JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- ^^vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa vk/kkjks ij ;g fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dj ;kph ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez izkFkZuk djrh gS fd %& 01- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns'k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ'k tkjh dj izR;FkhZ Øekad 2 o 3 dks funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd os ;kph dks muds dfu"B ys[kkdkj dh ijh{kk dk iz'u i=] ;kphx.k dh vks,evkj 'khV o mRrj dqath dh izfr nsosA 02- fodYi ds rkSj ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns'k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ'k tkjh dj izR;FkhZ Øekad 2 o 3 dks funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd os ;kph dks mudh dfu"B ys[kkdkj dh ijh{kk dk iz'u i=] ;kphx.k dh vks,evkj 'khV o mŸkj dqath dk voyksdu djk;Sa 03- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns'k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ'k tkjh dj izR;FkhZ Øekad 2 o 3 dks funsf'kZr djus dh d`ik djs fd os ;kph dks muds dfu"B ys[kkdkj dh ijh{kk dk iz'u i=] ;kph dh vks,evkj 'khV o mŸkj dqath dh izfr nsosa rFkk ;kph dks vk{ksi ntZ djkus gsrq mfpr le; fn;k tkdj vk{ksi ds fuLrkj.k ds mijkUr ;kph mŸkh.kZ gksrk gS rks mlds nLrkostksa dk lR;kiu dj fu;qfDr iznku djok;Sa 04- vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k rFkk bl ;kfpdk ij gksus okyk gtkZ [kpkZ tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s fnykus dh d`ik djsA^^ 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not provided answer keys of the question papers to the petitioner. 3. Counsel further submits that in an identical writ petition a Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the matter of Diensh Kumar & Another. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13897/2018, decided on 13-9-2018, has directed to provide answer key to the writ petitioners. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the whole selection process has been conducted by an independent agency namely Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (hereinafter referred to as IBPS) and the petitioner has not impleaded the recruiting agency i.e. IBPS as party respondent in the writ petition. 5. Counsel further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the matter of Kailash Chaudhary Vs. 5. Counsel further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the matter of Kailash Chaudhary Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20482/2018 has considered the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Diensh Kumar and while disposing of the writ petition vide order dt.27-9-2018 observed as under:- "1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed that copy of the OMR Sheet, answer key and question paper of J.E.N.-I (Electrical) Examination held on 29.07.2018 be provided to him. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the said documents can be made available from the Examining Body which conducted the examination mainly the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (hereinafter referred to as 'the IBPS'). The said fact was known to the petitioner however he has moved RTI application demanding the said documents from the respondents. It is stated that the said application also was returned in view of the fact that the fees through Indian Postal Order was in favour of Public Information Officer JVVNL, Jaipur (2 of 2) [CW-6051/2014] instead of Account Officer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Jaipur resultantly the RTI application could not be considered. 3. While it is settled principles of law that there should be transparency maintained in the Public Examination and answer key should be published without asking so that candidates may know their result and their position. In the present case as the examination was conducted by IBPS which is not impleaded as party to the present petition, such directions cannot be issued. Be that as it may, if an application is moved in correct format with due fees by the petitioner, the details which he demands shall be provided to him by the IBPS. Even otherwise, as noted by the Coordinate Bench in Dinesh Kumar & Another. Versus RRVUNL, S.B.C.W.P. No.13897/2018, decided on 13.09.2018, Principal Seat at Jodhpur, the answer key ought to be published and placed on the website. 4. It is expected from the respondents to do the needful by making arrangements with the IBPS. 5. With the said observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of." 6. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that while issuing the advertisement the respondents have not disclosed the name of the recruiting agency. 4. It is expected from the respondents to do the needful by making arrangements with the IBPS. 5. With the said observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of." 6. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that while issuing the advertisement the respondents have not disclosed the name of the recruiting agency. Counsel further submits that the recruiting agency is only the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited and not the IBPS. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. So far as the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the judgment in the matter of Diensh Kumar is concerned, that has already been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kailash Choudhary. 9. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Kailash Choudhary clearly shows that the IBPS conducted the examination and in absence of IBPS being impleaded as party respondent to the petition, no direction can be issued against the recruiting agency i.e. IBPS. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of in view of the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Kailash Choudhary.