JUDGMENT : 1. By filing this intra court Appeal, the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3575 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge was dismissed. The appellant-writ petitioner by filing the writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the application of the writ petitioner for evaluating her answer sheets which is pending before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 since 2006. Further prayer has been made for considering the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment to civil services posts as the cut-off marks as per the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) was 884, whereas, the writ petitioner has secured 879 marks and there has been no re-evaluation of GS-II and therefore, she had been denied her legitimate rights to be appointed to the said post. 2. The respondent-JPSC vide Advt. No.11/2002-03 had published notification of 1st Civil Services Examination, 2003 for appointment to different Civil Posts and pursuant to which the writ petitioner applied for the same and had been issued with the Admit Card. Thereafter, the writ petitioner appeared in the 1st Civil Services Mains Examination and was declared successful in the same. Thereafter, she faced the interview. The specific case of the writ petitioner is that in the entire selection process, she has done exceptionally well and hence, she was under the impression that her name will figure in the final merit list. However, when the final merit list was published her name was not forming part of it. She applied for re-evaluation of her answer-sheets. Thereafter, she received her mark-sheet by which she was informed that she obtained 66% marks in optional papers i.e. History & Zoology and 70% in General Studies-I, whereas, in G.S.-II, she has obtained 45% marks only. On 08.07.2006, she applied for re-totaling of the marks as she was apprehending manipulations in the results by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After filing of the representation, she also sought information under RTI Act as to the action taken on her representation submitted on 08.07.2006. As she was not given any reply the writ petitioner approached the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter, before the State Information Commission for providing copy of the Paper-II of General Studies but the respondent-JPSC did not provide her copy of the said paper. As she was not given any reply the writ petitioner approached the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter, before the State Information Commission for providing copy of the Paper-II of General Studies but the respondent-JPSC did not provide her copy of the said paper. Hence, the writ petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of her grievances. 3. The respondent-JPSC, inter alia, pleaded in the counter affidavit that written examination of 1st Combined Civil Services Mains Examination, 2003, was held from 23.06.2005 to 03.07.2005 and the writ petitioner has not been recommended by the JPSC for appointment in view of the fact that she has secured less marks than the last recommended candidate in her category. 4. Learned counsel further argues that on 14.06.2019, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties as well as the CBI has directed that question Nos. 5 & 6 has not been evaluated by the JPSC, whereas, learned counsel for the JPSC contended that there was manipulation in the answer sheets of the writ petitioner and extra copy has been tagged after examination which is a matter of investigation. Therefore, learned Single Judge has further observed that it fails to understand that when JPSC itself was custodian of the Answer sheets of all the candidates, how such manipulation took place. The learned Single Judge further held that upon going through the different orders of the Court and rival submissions of the parties, the Court was of the considered opinion that the Chairman, JPSC shall constitute a Board consisting of experts of General Studies Paper i.e. one Examiner and one Head Examiner under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, (EOW), CBI. It was further directed that the Committee shall examine the entire matter in depth and ascertain the force behind such manipulation in answer sheets, if any, and also whether question nos. 5 & 6 was at all answered by the writ petitioner and not evaluated by the JPSC. The CBI Officer was further directed to submit the final report with each and every details in form of Affidavit before this Court within a period of six weeks from 14.06.2019. 5. In compliance with the said order, a Committee was constituted and after examining the matter gave the following findings: (i) The handwriting of the examinee (Sujata Kumari) in filling up the details viz. Roll No., Name of Paper etc. 5. In compliance with the said order, a Committee was constituted and after examining the matter gave the following findings: (i) The handwriting of the examinee (Sujata Kumari) in filling up the details viz. Roll No., Name of Paper etc. in the main answer sheet and additional answer sheets appears to be different. (ii) The Invigilator Mrs. Maya Singh confirmed her signature on the main answer sheet but denied the signature to be her on the additional sheet which is question Nos. 5 and 6 of General Studies paper have been answered. (iii) The attendance sheet of Room No. 09 of Saraswati Sishu Vidya Mandir, Dhurwa, Ranchi where the writ petitioner took the exam shows overwriting in the additional answer sheets taken by the petitioner. This overwriting was also denied by the Invigilator, Mrs. Maya Singh. (iv) In the light of the above evidences, findings and testimony of the invigilator, it appears that the additional answer sheet of the writ petitioner on question Nos. 5 and 6 of the General Studies Paper were written that remained unevaluated, has been attached later on. 6. The learned Single Judge called for the answer sheets of the writ petitioner in sealed cover and verified the same and after verification of the same came to the conclusion that both the handwriting were different and copies were attached later on. The learned Single Judge further held that the report of the Committee cannot be doubted as the Court itself examined the correctness of the answer-sheets and the handwriting also. The Court recorded its full agreement with the findings of the Committee. Hence, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that her candidature for appointment was rightly not considered by the respondent-authorities. The writ petitioner is claiming appointment from 1st Civil Services Examination, 2003, and the matter was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the year 2022 i.e. after almost 19 years. The cause of action arose in June-July, 2005 but the writ petition has been filed in December, 2011. Since there is a delay of about seven years in approaching the Court there is no need to interfere in the matter. 7. The cause of action arose in June-July, 2005 but the writ petition has been filed in December, 2011. Since there is a delay of about seven years in approaching the Court there is no need to interfere in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant made a valiant attempt to assail the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, however, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge took pains to get the paper re-examined by a Committee in the presence of the officer of the CBI and there is nothing on record to show that the Committee so constituted by the order of the Court was in any manner prejudicial or biased against the petitioner. Thus, her allegation that the additional answer sheets containing question nos. 5 and 6 are not evaluated cannot be accepted in view of the clear cut finding of the Committee as well as of the learned Single Judge that the additional sheets were attached later on. There has been certain direction by the learned Single Judge to the Chairman/Secretary of the JPSC for tracing out the culprit, however, that issue is not challenged before us so we refrain to pass any order thereon. 8. Even considering the case in the light of doing substantive justice to the petitioner, we have carefully examined the answer-sheet copies of which are in the record. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that each question was carrying 10 marks each. It is seen that the answers to question nos. 5 and 6 in the additional sheet consist of not more than one and half page. We have carefully read the answer written by the writ petitioner in question no. 5. It appears that it is a question relating to direct and indirect investment and in our considered opinion the answer that has been given by the writ petitioner for question no.5 would not worth even 2 marks. In other words having considered the answer given by the writ petitioner of question no. 5 we would consider that any examiner would not award marks more than 2 out of 10. As far as question no. 6 is concerned only one sentence has been written in four lines which makes absolutely no sense. In other words having considered the answer given by the writ petitioner of question no. 5 we would consider that any examiner would not award marks more than 2 out of 10. As far as question no. 6 is concerned only one sentence has been written in four lines which makes absolutely no sense. So even if we take the case of the writ petitioner to do substantive justice then also we find no merit in the application in view of the fact that the answer to question nos. 5 and 6 which is allegedly not evaluated by the examiner cannot in any circumstance secured more than 2 and half marks for the writ petitioner and it is a admitted case of the writ petitioner that she has secured 5 marks less than the cut-off marks. 9. In that alternative scenario also, we find no merit in this appeal and therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 12. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.