JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 19.06.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench at Nainital (hereinafter referred to as, "Tribunal") in Original Application No.1649 of 2010, "Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others". 2. The facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent while working as Senior Telecom Office Assistant in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Srinagar, Garhwal, appeared in departmental examination meant for Junior Accounts Officer (J.A.O.) held on 4th to 6th January, 2010. According to paper number 43, there was a mistake in question no.2 of paper no.5 and the clarification letter was issued by the petitioner on 29.01.2010. The respondent was not successful in the said examination. He moved an application before the Tribunal bearing Original Application No.1305 of 2010, "Shri Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others" for quashing the result and to declare the fresh result. The said application was decided by the Tribunal on 08.09.2010 and the petitioner was directed to dispose off the representations of the respondent. The representations of the respondent were decided by the petitioner vide order dated 25.10.2010. Against the said order dated 25.10.2010, the respondent again filed an application before the Tribunal bearing Original Application No.1649 of 2010, "Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others". The said application was decided by the impugned order dated 19.06.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the result of the examination was declared as per the merit list and available vacancies based on evaluation done by nominated evaluator. The respondent failed in paper v and, as such, his name did not find place in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner decided the representations of the respondent in accordance with law in the compliance of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner for revaluation, whereas, there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets and according to Rule 15 of Part I of Appendix No.37 Rules relating to Departmental Examinations, revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances. 4. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner for revaluation, whereas, there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets and according to Rule 15 of Part I of Appendix No.37 Rules relating to Departmental Examinations, revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present matter is not for the revaluation of the answer key rather it is only for consideration of the respondent's request on the basis of clarification issued by the petitioner vide letter dated 29.01.2010. The petitioner himself has admitted that there was typographical error in the question no.2 of paper 5th, hence, it cannot be said that the case of the respondent is for revaluation of answer sheet. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order, passed by learned Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties through video conferencing. 6. The respondent had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1305 of 2010, which was disposed off vide order dated 08.09.2010 and directed to the petitioner to decide the representations of the respondent. In compliance of the order dated 08.09.2010, the representations of the respondent were decided on 25.10.2010. The said representations were decided in the light of BSNL HQ clarification note dated 29.01.2010. 7. In the order dated 25.10.2010, it was stated, "You have requested vide above said representations for re-checking of answer sheets of Paper-V of JAO-II examination held on 4th, 5th and 6th January 2010 and awarding of full marks i.e. 30 out of 30 for answers to Question no.2 of Question paper V. In this regard it is mentioned here that there was a minor typographical error in question No.2 of paper V of the examination and it's key answer and corrective measures were taken before the evaluation of answer scripts vide letter No. 102/2009-DE DATED 20.01.2010 & dated 29.01.2010. The clarificatory letter dated 29.01.2010 was issued by DE branch of Corporate office in pursuance of clarification received from paper setter, who has provided the Answer Key. The answer scripts of subjective papers cannot be evaluated strictly as per answer given in answer keys provided to the evaluator. Furthermore, answer key provided by the paper setter is taken as guidance by the evaluator and he/she uses his own wisdom for evaluation of answer sheets. The answer scripts of subjective papers cannot be evaluated strictly as per answer given in answer keys provided to the evaluator. Furthermore, answer key provided by the paper setter is taken as guidance by the evaluator and he/she uses his own wisdom for evaluation of answer sheets. With regard to the allegation made by you regarding improper marking in your Papers by the evaluators, it is stated that the allegation is based on self evaluation of your answer scripts, which has no meaning for preparation of results of an examination. Your papers were evaluated by fairly high level officers of the department who were also expert on the subjects. The examiner is the final authority in so far as evaluation of answer sheet is concerned and his/her wisdom cannot be challenged. The candidates who were declared pass in the examination have already been promoted as JAO after completion of Phase-I training. As such, the process of Examination has already attained finality. By pointing out some alleged discrepancies in evaluation on the basis of alleged wrong answer key you want re-evaluation on your answer scripts. In this regard it is stated that in terms of Rule-15 of Part-I of Appendix 37 (Rules Relating to Departmental examination) of P&T Manual Vol. IV as you had already been informed vide this office letter no. UAL/RTI-05/CPIO's/09-10 dated 13/04/2010 that "re-evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances." 8. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 19.06.2015, held, "6. In the present case, the proposition involved is not that whether revaluation of the answer of candidate is permissible or not. The issue involved is "whether answer given by the candidate matching with the key should be give credit or not in terms of the clarification issued by the respondents themselves." The candidates whose answer matched with the key though wrong should be given due credit. In the circumstances the O.A. is disposed with a direction to the respondent to verify whether the answer given by the applicant to Question No.2 in paper was matching with the one given in odd key or not. If the question is matching with the original key, he should be give a credit for the same and his result should be prepared after giving such credit. Needful should be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 9. If the question is matching with the original key, he should be give a credit for the same and his result should be prepared after giving such credit. Needful should be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 9. It is settled that in the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer sheet in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right whatsoever to claim or ask for a revaluation of his answer sheet. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , Sahiti vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599 ). 10. In the instant matter, in Rule 15 of Part I of Appendix No.37 Rules relating to Departmental Examinations, it is clearly mentioned that revaluation of answer scripts is not permissible in any case or under any circumstances. 11. The representations of the respondent were decided by the petitioner by a speaking order and now the intention of the respondent is found to revalue his answer script, therefore, in these circumstances, the effect of the directions given by the impugned order is to revalue the answer script of the respondent, which is not permissible in law. 12. The writ petition is consequently allowed. The order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench at Nainital in Original Application No.1649 of 2010, "Vishnu Prasad Uniyal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam and others" is set aside. Original Application No.1649 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs.