ORDER : Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief: "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the deduction of marks of alleged error of words in shorthand book as mentioned in the result statement (ann-3) may kindly be declared illegal and respondent authority may kindly be directed to consider the marks of total rights words as mentioned in result statement and revise the result accordingly. (ii) It is further prayed that after revising of the result, the respondent may kindly be directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for further process of selection in pursuance to the advertisement (ann-1) for apportionment as stenographer while preparing the fresh selection list as per his merit position in his respective category and if any appointment order is issued during pendency of the writ petition on the basis of selection list (ann-08) that may be quash and set aside." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification dated 4.7.2018 was issued by the Staff Selection Board for recruitment on the post of Stenographer. The petitioner applied for the post of Stenographer pursuant to the advertisement and after clearing the examination in the first phase, he was selected for second phase wherein, he was to undergo Hindi/English shorthand test. The final result of the test was declared on 11.5.2022 wherein, the petitioner's roll number did not find mention and consequently, he failed. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents in deducting marks for purported errors in shorthand book is not justified as the same is not provided by the guidelines, therefore, action of the respondents in deducting the marks for purported errors in the shorthand book deserves to be set aside. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the respondents may be directed to provide him a photocopy of his shorthand book wherein he noted down shorthand sign script as also the photocopy of transcription typed by the petitioner. 3. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the respondents may be directed to provide him a photocopy of his shorthand book wherein he noted down shorthand sign script as also the photocopy of transcription typed by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by judgment of this Court rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10056/2022 (Dashrath Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4444/2022 (Rajesh Jhala v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein coordinate Benches of this Court have held that the entire purpose/emphasis of a stenographer/stenography is to write in shorthand and a person employed mainly to take and transcribe dictation. Therefore, for the purpose of stenography, making of shorthand notes and subsequent transcription of the same is sine-qua-non for the stenographer. Thus, for the purpose of evaluation of a candidate for the post of Stenographer, deduction of marks for failure to take dictation in shorthand is totally justified. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Jhala (supra) has held that Court cannot issue directions for furnishing photocopy of the answer-sheets/shorthand book mechanically unless a case is made out by the petitioner that it would be in the public interest to furnish the required information by providing the photocopy of the shorthand book in conformity with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Angesh Kumar reported in (2018) 4 SCC 530 . 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the controversy involved in the instant case is covered by the judgment of Dashrath Prajapat and Rajesh Jhala (supra). The petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the instant writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 6. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar the petitioner from seeking requisite information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the respondents and to approach before the appropriate forum for this purpose under the Right to Information Act, 2005 if so advised. 7. All pending applications are also dismissed.