ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or direction calling for the records of the selection process of Civil Judge (Entry Level) 2008 conducted by the respondent no.1 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or direction to valuate the page 11 and 12 of the answer sheet of the petitioner which relates the charge framing part of question no.2, should be valued by the subject expert and allotted marks on it. 10.3 The marks in answer of question no.1 and 3 of the petitioner may kindly be pleased to enhance in view of marks given to other candidates. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to give benefits to the petitioner by selecting her if her marks are increased and if increased marks are sufficient to select the petitioner in the final selection list. It is also humbly prayed that, if the selected candidates are posted, then a new post should be created and the petitioner should be appointed on it.” 2. The brief facts as reflected from record are that on 01.02.08 respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for filling up 60 posts in the cadre of Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Services. The 31 posts were for unreserved category, for SC category 9 posts, for ST category 11 posts and for OBC candidates 8 posts were reserved. The petitioner participated in the said examination. The petitioner cleared the preliminary examination and appeared in the main examination, which was conducted on 13.07.2008. The petitioner was also qualified the main examination securing 49 marks out of 100 marks in the written examination and as such she was qualified for interview also. The other candidates who had secured 48 marks out of 100 marks were also declared as qualified for interview as evident from list published by the High Court. 3. Respondent No. 1 conducted the interview from 23.08.2008 to 04.09.2008. Respondent No. 1 issued final selection list of 60 candidates (Annexure P-5). The petitioner has secured 56 marks including marks obtained in the written examination and in the interview. The petitioner belongs to General Category and as per the list, the last candidate selected in general category has secured 62 marks which inclusive of written examination and interview. 4. Respondent No. 1 issued final selection list of 60 candidates (Annexure P-5). The petitioner has secured 56 marks including marks obtained in the written examination and in the interview. The petitioner belongs to General Category and as per the list, the last candidate selected in general category has secured 62 marks which inclusive of written examination and interview. 4. The petitioner was not satisfied with the marks in the written examination, as such, she applied for answer sheets and model answer under Right to Information Act. On perusal of the answer sheet, it was revealed to her that question No. 2 at page 11 & 12 has not been evaluated, consequently no marks have been awarded whereas question No. 2 of other candidates have been evaluated and marks were awarded to them. The petitioner has also annexed Model Answer, Answer sheet of petitioner and Answer sheet of other candidates as Annexure P/6 to P/8. Thereafter on 15.12.2008 petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.1 to evaluate the part of question No. 2 which has not been evaluated (Annexure P-9). On 24.12.2008 the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. On the above factual matrix, the petitioner has filed present writ petition on 28.01.2009 for the relief as mentioned above. 5. Respondent No. 1 has filed its return denying the allegations made in the writ petition mainly contending that the petition suffers from delay and latches since prior of filing of petition the selection process has already been completed and order of appointment was issued vide order dated 08.12.2008. It has been further contended that the examination was conducted under ‘Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Services (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Rules 2006 wherein there is no provision available under the said rules entitling the petitioner to seek such direction for revaluation of her answer sheet as evident from clause 17 of the advertisement, which reads as under:- ^^mPp U;k;ky; dh ijh{kk Á.kkyh esa iquewZY;kadu dk dksbZ Áko/kku ugha gSA bl fo"k; esa ÁkIr vH;kosnuksa ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk;sxhA** 6. It has been further contended that the answer sheet of the petitioner has been evaluated by the examiner strictly in accordance with law and proper marks have been allotted to him. Question No. 2 carries total 40 marks out of which 10 marks were for farming of charge, 10 marks for points of consideration and 20 marks for conclusion/judgment. It has been further contended that the answer sheet of the petitioner has been evaluated by the examiner strictly in accordance with law and proper marks have been allotted to him. Question No. 2 carries total 40 marks out of which 10 marks were for farming of charge, 10 marks for points of consideration and 20 marks for conclusion/judgment. So far as question relating to ‘framing of charge’ is concerned, it is in two parts. First part is for commission of offence punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code for ‘criminal trespass’ whereas the second part is related to commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for ‘voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means’. On close perusal of the answer attempted by the petitioner, it would reveal that no charge has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC and only charge which has been framed is for Section 324 of IPC and, therefore, the answer of these two parts of question remain incomplete. Since incomplete answer for the question No. 2 has been given therefore the examiner has allotted the marks accordingly for the said answer and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that this Court has passed the order on 28.11.2019 directing the respondent No. 1/High Court to send the answer sheet of the petitioner for evaluation of Part-A of answer No. 2 to Dr. Sagar Kumar Jaiswal, Assistant Professor and HOD, Faculty of Law, working in Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur. The valuer shall value the answer and send back his evaluation report to this Court by 10th December 2019. This Court has further directed the Registrar (Selection and Appointment), High Court of Chhattisgarh, to carry petitioner’s answer sheet to the valuer and apprise him so that part of the answer No. 2 written by the petitioner can be re-evaluated. 8. The record of the case would show that respondent No. 1 has challenged this order before Hon’ble Division Bench by filing writ appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 147/2020 and during course of hearing, respondent No. 1 has withdrawn the said writ appeal. 8. The record of the case would show that respondent No. 1 has challenged this order before Hon’ble Division Bench by filing writ appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 147/2020 and during course of hearing, respondent No. 1 has withdrawn the said writ appeal. One Shrinivas Tiwari/respondent No. 3 has also filed writ appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 219/2020 before Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court and Hon’ble the Division Bench vide order date 03.03.2020 has dismissed the appeal by observing that the dismissal of the appeal is without prejudice to rights and liberties of parties to address the Court where the issue is pending including factual as well as legal points. Hon’ble the Division Bench has also observed that they have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the order dated 28.11.20219 passed by the learned Single Bench. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 10. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that from the order sheet of the present writ petition dated 12.12.2019, it is quite vivid from the report that the petitioner has got 6 out 10 marks in question No. 2, Part-2A, thus, her merit position will be upgraded and she will get 62 marks, as such, she is entitled to be selected on the post of Civil Judge Class-II. He would further submit that since respondent No. 3 has also secured 62 marks and the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 3 in age, therefore, as per rules, she should be appointed on the post of Civil Judge Class-II. He would further submit that contention raised by respondent No. 1 that in absence of any provision of re-evaluation, the answer sheets cannot be re-evaluated, is without any merit. To substantiate his argument, he would draw attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of High Court of Tripura Vs. He would further submit that contention raised by respondent No. 1 that in absence of any provision of re-evaluation, the answer sheets cannot be re-evaluated, is without any merit. To substantiate his argument, he would draw attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarthi Mukherjee & others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663 and would submit that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in rare and exceptional circumstances even in absence of provision for revaluation where candidate despite having undoubtedly given correct answer is marked wrong and found disentitled to any marks, this Court can very well issue such direction, which has rightly been issued by this Court on 29.11.2019 and would pray for allowing the petition with all consequential benefits. 11. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 1 would submit that in view of the observation made by Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 219/2020, all the issues relating to the prayer of revaluation are open for consideration as such, the contention raised by the petitioner that she is entitled to get 6 marks in view of the revaluation, deserves to be rejected. He would further submit that it is well settled position of law that candidates appearing in the examination can not ask for revaluation as a matter of right unless rules permit. In the present case, there is specific clause in the advertisement which prohibits revaluation and there is no such rule in the ‘Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2006’ (for short “the Rules, 2006”) which provides for revaluation. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get revaluation of her answer No. 2 of Part-A. To substantiate his contention, he would draw attention of this Court towards judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714 , the recent decision of this Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 and Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, reported in AIR 2022 SC 5523 . 12. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 and Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, reported in AIR 2022 SC 5523 . 12. He would further submit that while sending the answer sheet for revaluation no such secrecy as required has been maintained. The name of the examiner to whom the task of revaluation was entrusted was disclosed. The required number by which the petitioner could come under the zone of consideration of selection was also known to the examiner. The previous allotted/obtained marks in the said paper were not hided rather it was disclosed and was in the knowledge of the examiner. It is well known procedure of the re-valuation that while sending the answer sheet to new examiner for revaluation the previous marks allotted to the examinee should remain secret and further the name of the examiner should also be kept secret. Confidentiality is an important part of the examination. Revaluation by disclosing every confidential part such as name/ roll number of examinee, the marks obtained by her, the name of examiner, the minimum marks required for selection etc. all these infirmities make the process of revaluation illegal and, therefore, the marks allotted to the petitioner after revaluation do not deserve to be added to the previous marks. 13. It has been further contended that the answer sheet of the petitioner has earlier been evaluated by the examiner strictly in accordance with law and proper marks have been allotted to the Petitioner. Question No 2 carries total 40 marks out of which 10 marks was for framing of charge, 10 marks for points of consideration and 20 marks for conclusion/judgment. So far as question related with the ‘framing of charge’ is concerned it is in two parts. First part is for commission of offence punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code for ‘criminal trespass’ whereas the second part is related with the commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for ‘voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means’. On close perusal of the answer attempted by the petitioner it would reveal no charge has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC and only charge which has been framed is for under Section 324 of IPC and, therefore, the answer of these two parts of question remain incomplete. On close perusal of the answer attempted by the petitioner it would reveal no charge has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC and only charge which has been framed is for under Section 324 of IPC and, therefore, the answer of these two parts of question remain incomplete. Since incomplete answer for the question No. 2 has been given the examiner has allotted the marks accordingly for the said answer. He would further submit that the vacancies are not available, as such, prayer of the petitioner to allow her joining on the post of Civil Judge Class-II deserves to be rejected and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. From the above factual and legal submission following points emerged for determination by this Court:- (1) What is the effect of interim order dated 28.11.2019 passed by this Court after dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 219/2020 wherein certain observations were made regarding rights and liberties of the parties to address where the issue is pending on all grounds including the factual as well as legal points. (2) Whether on examination of answer giving marks will amount to revaluation of the answer or not. (3) Whether in absence of any rules permitting revaluation of the answer sheet, can this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue writ of mandamus for revaluation. 15. The records of the case would show that the writ appeal was dismissed by this Court but while dismissing the writ appeal, this Court has opened all the contentions to be address by the parties, thus, it is quite vivid that whether revaluation can be ordered or whether secrecy has been maintained, whether it is inconformity with the binding precedents are all the matters to be decided after hearing both the parties still to open. Hon’ble the Division Bench has also observed that it is not the main relief as prayed for in the writ petition but an interim order, thus it is quite vivid that even after the reports were received by the Court, it is open for the parties to raise all such contentions. Hon’ble the Division Bench has also observed that it is not the main relief as prayed for in the writ petition but an interim order, thus it is quite vivid that even after the reports were received by the Court, it is open for the parties to raise all such contentions. The petitioner has not been able to point out that whether any settled procedure for revaluation has been adopted, even the name of the examiner was known to all the parties which is not permissible under the revaluation schemes prevailing in various educational institutions. The purity of the revaluation procedure is paramount consideration, which has not been placed on record by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to get marks as observed by this Court in the answer sheet on 12.12.2019. As such, in view of observation made by Hon’ble the Division Bench, the interim order passed by this Court on 28.11.2019 has lost its significance. Point No. 2 16. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines revaluation as under:- An increase in the value of one currency in relation to another currency. The Cambridge Dictionary defines reevaluation as under:- “The process or act of judging or calculating the quality, importance, amount, or value of something for a second, third, etc. time” 17. From above dictionary meaning, it is quite vivid that revaluation and re-evaluation are similar in that they both involve the process of reassessing or reviewing something. However, they are often used in slightly different contexts. Revaluation typically refers to the process of reassessing the value of a currency or an asset, usually in relation to a change in economic or political conditions. Re-evaluation, on the other hand, is more general and can refer to the process of reviewing or reassessing anything, including policies, programs, or even people. In summary, revaluation refers to the process of reassessing the value of a currency or an asset, while re-evaluation refers to the process of reviewing or reassessing anything. Thus, by sending the answer sheet of the petitioner for examination is pursuance of the Court order dated 28.11.2019 is nothing but revaluation of the answer sheet. Point No. 3 18. From perusal of Rules, 2006, it is quite vivid that this rule does not provide revaluation of the answer sheet whereas clause 17 of the advertisement clearly prohibits for revaluation. Point No. 3 18. From perusal of Rules, 2006, it is quite vivid that this rule does not provide revaluation of the answer sheet whereas clause 17 of the advertisement clearly prohibits for revaluation. Thus, in absence of any specific provision for revaluation, no direction can be issued. This issue has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court very recently in 11.07.2023 in SLP (Civil) No. 3144/2023 in case of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi Vs. Ravinder Singh. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 5 as under:- “5. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions made relying upon the aforesaid provisions, we have given our anxious consideration. We do not think, in the light of the indisputable and undisputed facts obtained in this case that it is necessary to undertake any survey on the authorities on the subject of evaluation for a consideration of the captioned appeal. The fact is that in the case on hand, the respondent sought for re-evaluation of his answer to question No.9 of Law Paper-I. The impugned judgment itself would reveal that he was awarded no marks viz., ‘zero marks’ in respect of the said question in the light of specific provision under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. We have carefully scanned the grounds raised in the captioned appeal and also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent. They would reveal that the respondent got no case that Section 134 (2) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 is not the specific provision applicable as relates question No.9 of Law Paper-I and therefore, we are at a loss to understand as to how he could attribute ‘material error’ warranting interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. As noted earlier, the specific case of the appellant herein is that the answer of the respondent to question No. 9 of Law Paper-I is wrong in the light of Sections 134(2) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999. In view of the said position, it can also be said that there is no ‘material error’ requiring a re-evaluation, even if it is taken that despite Clause XII, Rule 7 of DHJS Rules, re-evaluation is permissible. In view of the said position, it can also be said that there is no ‘material error’ requiring a re-evaluation, even if it is taken that despite Clause XII, Rule 7 of DHJS Rules, re-evaluation is permissible. The decision relied on by the respondent viz., the decision in Ran Vijay Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2018) 2 SCC 357 ] itself would reveal the position that when a statutory provision prohibits re-evaluation it cannot be ordered to be undertaken. So also, the decision is to the effect that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny on if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalisation” and only in rare and exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. When that be the position, in the light of the provision of Clause XII, Rule 7C of the DHJS Rules and specially taking note of the fact that it is not a case where the respondent is seeking correction of a patent error in the matter of totaling of the marks, or an omission in evaluating an answer warranting an evaluation we do not think that it is a case where the prayer of the respondent could have acceded to in the light of the provisions under Clause XII, Rule 7C of the DHJS Rules and also in the light of the aforesaid decision, as per the impugned judgment, the petitioner-herein was directed to send the respondent’s answer to question No.9 for re-evaluation to any other examiner. We are of the considered view in the light of the specific prohibition in Clause XII of Rule 7 of the DHJS Rules for re-evaluation as also in view of our conclusion that there is no ‘material error’ in the evaluation warranting an interfering with the decision of the petitioner herein.” 19. Thus, it is quite vivid that in absence of any rule revaluation of answer sheet, no direction for revaluation can be issued by this Court. 20. Thus, it is quite vivid that in absence of any rule revaluation of answer sheet, no direction for revaluation can be issued by this Court. 20. The judgment referred to by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in case of High Court of Tripura (supra) is distinguishable from facts of the present case as in that case Hon'ble the Supreme Court has recorded its finding that in rare and exceptional circumstances, this Court can exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in absence of provision for re-valuation where candidate despite having undoubtedly given correct answer is marked wrong and found disentitled to any marks and where there is no dispute about correctness of answer and in case of doubt, it should be resolved in favour of examining body as against the candidate. The present case is not rare and exceptional as the respondent has categorically explained how the marks have not been given to the petitioner, which was not rebutted by the petitioner. 21. From above stated factual, legal and discussion of the points, it is quite vivid that the interim order passed by this Court on 28.11.2019 has lost its significance in view of liberties granted by the Division Bench and also considering that the revaluation and re-evaluation is one and same and in absence of any rule for revaluation, no direction can be issued by revaluation of the answer sheet. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.