JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record as also the shorthand book along with transcription, produced by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred as “Board”), in pursuance of order passed by this Court on 21.03.2023 wherein petitioner wrote the audio clip in sign script (steno) in Hindi language, while appearing in phase II examination of Stenographer Joint Direct Recruitment Examination 2018 for appointment on the post of Stenographer. 2. It is a case where petitioner participated in the Direct Recruitment of Stenographer, pursuant to advertisement No.13/2018 dated 04.07.2018 issued by the Board. The Board, for the purpose of appointment to the post of Stenographer in various departments against vacancies advertised, conducted examination in two phases, phase I examination is written test, comprising two papers of General Knowledge and General Hindi & English, carrying 100 marks of each paper respectively, phase II examination pertains to skill test of stenography either Hindi or in English, carrying 100 marks. Final merit list was required to be prepared on the conjoint marks, obtained by candidates in examination of phase I and phase II. In the present writ petition, the dispute has arisen in respect of examination of phase II of petitioner, conducted on 28.10.2021 wherein petitioner appeared and opted stenography language of Hindi. 3. It is not in dispute that instructions and guidelines in respect of phase II examination pertaining to Hindi/English shorthand test were appended with the advertisement itself and well known to the petitioner and such instructions have been placed on record by petitioner as Ann-7. As per the scheme of phase II examination, same was based on computer and audio clip of ten minutes was to be operated and which was required to be noted down by the candidate in language of stenography i.e. sing scrip either in Hindi or English as the case may be and as opted by candidate and then the noted sign script was required to be transcribed/typed on computer in the language opted by candidate within sixty minutes for English language and within 70 minutes for Hindi language. It is clearly instructed in guidelines that the audio clip, operated in the examination hall shall be required to be noted down by the candidates in sign script (steno) in the shorthand book, made available to the candidates and any transcription/typed passage, from other than sign script (steno) shall not be checked for giving marks. It is also clearly indicated in the instructions that it is essential for the candidate to appear in stenography test, failing which, he will considered failed. The relevant instructions as indicated in the advertisement are being extracted hereunder :- ^^fganh@vaxzsth dh vkWfM;ks fDyi 10 feuV ds fy, pyk;h tk;sxhaA fganh@vaxszth dh vksfM;ks fDyi 100 kCn izfr feuV dh LihM ls pyk;h tk;sxhA vH;FkhZ viuh pquh gqbZ Hkk"kk dh vkWfM;ks fDyi lqudj mldk Jqfrys[ku djsxkA eq[; Jqrys[k ls iwoZ Vªk;y x|ka'k¼iSlst½ dk Jqrys[k vkWfM;ks flLVe ds ek/;e ls mlh xfr ls pyk;k tk;sxk tks xfr eq[;k Jqrys[k ds fy, fu/kkZfjr gSA Vªk;y x|ka'k ¼iSlsat½ ds i'pkr eq[; Jqrys[k vkWfM;ks flLVe ls pyk;k tk,xk ftldks ijh{kk LFky ij miyC/k djkbZ xfr uksVcqd es ladsr fyfi es fy[kuk gksxkA vH;FkhZ dks vk'kqfyfi ijh{k.k dh ijh{kk nsuk vfuok;Z gS vU;Fkk og vuqrhZ.k ekuk tk,xkA ladsr fyfi ds vfrfjDr vU; Hkk"kk@fyfi es fy[ks x, Jqrys[k dks ugh tkapk tk,xkA uksVcqd es vH;FkhZ dks jky uacj] gLrk{kj ,oa okfaNr izfof"V;kW fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij djuh gksxhA Jqrys[k fy[kus gsrq uksVcqd ijh{kk LFky ij miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxh ftls vH;FkhZ dks ijh{kk ds mijkar vfHktkxj dks okfil tek djkuk gksxkA vfHk;kFkhZ Jqrys[k gsrq isafly ,oa jcj vius lkFk ysdj mifLFkr gksOksA^^ 4. The case of the petitioner is that he qualified written test of phase I and on issuance of admit card to appear in phase II examination of Hindi stenography, he appeared on scheduled date i.e. 29.10.2021 in shorthand test. Petitioner jotted down the audio clip in the shorthand book (response sheet) made available to them by the Board and thereafter, same was transcribed/ typed in Hindi language, for which petitioner was hopeful to obtain more than 85 marks but on enquiry it revealed to petitioner that the Board has not granted any marks to petitioner for phase II examination, rather declared him disqualified. Petitioner has enclosed his marksheet as Ann-10 wherein it is indicated that the petitioner was disqualified, in shorthand test of phase II examination. 5. Petitioner has enclosed his marksheet as Ann-10 wherein it is indicated that the petitioner was disqualified, in shorthand test of phase II examination. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner made a representation before the Board dated 07.03.2022 (Ann-11) to check his Hindi transcription, to give marks in the phase II test and to consider the petitioner on merits for appointment to the post of Stenographer, but same was not responded, hence, petitioner constrained to file the instant writ petition seeking directions against the Board, to declare his marks of shorthand test (phase II) so as to consider his candidature on merits for appointment and to provide photocopy of his shorthand book, where he noted down shorthand sign script as also the photocopy of transcription typed by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay [ (2011)8 SCC 497 ]. 6. Per contra, the respondent-Board, in reply to the writ petition has taken a plea that the petitioner has not written the dictation of audio clip in sign script (steno) rather written it in longhand, therefore, according to the general instructions indicated in the advertisement itself, the Hindi transcription typed by petitioner was not checked and for phase II test, pertaining to shorthand test, petitioner was declared disqualified. It has been contended in reply that the Board has taken utmost precaution in checking the shorthand book (response sheet) of candidates and in order to ensure that no injustice is done to any candidate, a Committee comprising of subject experts was constituted by the Board. The subject experts checked the shorthand book (response sheet) of candidates and as many as 2944 candidates were disqualified, including the petitioner who did not write the audio clip in sign script (steno) or who write the audio clip in Hindi or English language as opted, in longhand or who write in longhand and thereafter, write shorthand after erasing the same in their response sheet. It is clearly contended in reply that transcript of words typed by candidate were checked, only after checking the response sheet of shorthand script. Since in shorthand book (response sheet) of petitioner, the expert examiner noticed that same is written in longhand and not in shorthand (sign script), therefore, the typed Hindi transcription of petitioner was not evaluated for giving marks and petitioner was declared disqualified in his shorthand test. Since in shorthand book (response sheet) of petitioner, the expert examiner noticed that same is written in longhand and not in shorthand (sign script), therefore, the typed Hindi transcription of petitioner was not evaluated for giving marks and petitioner was declared disqualified in his shorthand test. It has been contended in reply that the Board has acted fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for public good and in public interest, in checking of response sheets of candidates through Committee of subject experts and thereafter for evaluation of typed transcription of candidates for the purpose of marking. It has been contended that the shorthand test is essential in the present recruitment for the post of Stenographer and due to disqualification of petitioner in shorthand test, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered on merits for appointment on the post of Stenographer and the relief prayed for in the writ petition, is not liable to be granted. 7. In rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that according to Wikipedia website, there is no specific language of shorthand and it is only a method of writing. In the advertisement, any specified language to be used for stenography has not been prescribed and since stenography is a code language skill for which there cannot be any determined sign script, an experience holder person of such script in codes, is eligible to check the language of stenography codes and there is no subject experts of same. Petitioner has submitted that since, only the transcription typed by petitioner is required to be evaluated for grant of marks in phase II test, therefore, the Board should check the transcription typed by petitioner in Hindi to grant marks. It may be noted here that in rejoinder, petitioner has nowhere denied the fact contended by respondent-Board in the reply to the effect that petitioner did write the audio clip in the shorthand book in longhand and this fact has not been refuted by the petitioner in pleadings, even in rejoinder too. 8. Taking into the controversy in issue involved in the instant writ petition, this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022, directed the respondent-Board to bring/placed on record the shorthand book (response sheet) as well as transcription script of the petitioner in respect of his phase II test for perusal by this Court. 8. Taking into the controversy in issue involved in the instant writ petition, this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022, directed the respondent-Board to bring/placed on record the shorthand book (response sheet) as well as transcription script of the petitioner in respect of his phase II test for perusal by this Court. In response thereto, counsel for respondent-Board has placed on record the shorthand book along with the Hindi transcription, in relation to Hindi stenography test of petitioner for perusal of this Court. 9. Learned counsel for respondent-Board, on strength of judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Angesh Kumar [ (2018) 4 SCC 530 ] expressed his inability to produce the response-sheet and transcription of petitioner on record as same is not required in the public interest and present case does not meet out the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, to produce the information in respect of examination for public employment. 10. Having considered the rival contentions of counsel for both parties and from perusal of record, it is a clear case where the petitioner after clearing the phase I examination, appeared in phase II examination shorthand test for appointment to the post of Stenographer, but the Board has noticed that in respect of shorthand test of petitioner, the audio clip which was played in the examination hall and which has essential required to be noted down/write down by candidates in the language of Stenography (sign script), in their respective shorthand books made available to them by the Board, the petitioner has noted down the audio clip in longhand i.e in Hindi language and not in sign script (shorthand), therefore, according to general instructions notified in the advertisement as well as displayed on the website of the Board, petitioner has been declared disqualified and due to such reason & consequent thereupon the transcription of petitioner typed in Hindi has not been checked/evaluated for the purpose of giving marks in examination for phase II. The general instructions which were issued by the Board in respect of Hindi/English shorthand test and out of which the relevant instructions have been extracted hereinabove in para 2 of the judgment, are available on record and it is not a case of petitioner that he was not aware or not acquainted with such instructions before appearing in the phase II examination. In the writ petition, petitioner has nowhere pleaded that he write the audio clip in language of stenography (sign script) only, following general instructions in this respect. In the marksheet (Ann-10), enclosed by petitioner with writ petition, clearly indicates that the petitioner was treated as disqualified for his shorthand test and as such no marks for shorthand test/phase II examination was given to petitioner. In reply to the writ petition, the respondent-Board has pleaded that the shorthand book (response sheet) of candidates were got checked through a Committee comprising of subject experts constituted by the Board and transcription typed by candidate on software were checked only after checking of the shorthand book (response sheet) required to be written essentially in sign script only. The response sheet/shorthand book of petitioner was found to be written in longhand by expert committee, therefore, petitioner was disqualified in shorthand test following the instructions and consequent thereupon, the Hindi transcription typed by petitioner was not checked/ evaluated for giving marks in phase II examination. According to respondents, as many as 2944 candidates including the petitioner were disqualified on this count due to not following the strict instructions to write the audio clip in shorthand book only in sign script, failing which, candidate will be considered failed. After filing the reply, petitioner has submitted rejoinder, but in rejoinder, petitioner has nowhere denied that he did not write the audio clip in longhand in his shorthand book (response sheet). There is nodenia in the pleadings of petitioner to this effect. Bare perusal of the shorthand book, produced by the Board before this Court, shows that the contention of respondents which is based on checking of response sheet by subject experts is not disbelievable. It is true that the Board has not specified any particular sign script for stenography language and it is a skill of language to write the words in codes but the stenography is certainly not the language of longhand. Petitioner himself has no where denied in his pleadings that he did not use longhand while writing the audio clip nor has clarified as to in which type of code language of Hindi stenography, he write the audio clip in his response sheet/shorthand book. Petitioner himself has no where denied in his pleadings that he did not use longhand while writing the audio clip nor has clarified as to in which type of code language of Hindi stenography, he write the audio clip in his response sheet/shorthand book. On the shorthand book of petitioner, the examiner has put a remark in red ink that all five pages are totally longhand written such red remark in fully visible & readable which cannot be disbelived. Petitioner has not levelled any allegations of malafide against the Board or subject experts. According to general instructions for shorthand test as notified in advance, candidature of candidate is required to be failed and transcription typed by him shall not be checked in case the candidate will not write the audio clip in the sign script (steno) in his shorthand book. Since the shorthand book (response sheet) of petitioner has been found to be written in longhand, other than sign script (steno), therefore, the Hindi transcription typed by petitioner has rightly not been checked and petitioner has been declared disqualified in the shorthand test. In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality on the part of Board, in not evaluating the Hindi transcription of petitioner and declaring the petitioner ineligible in phase II examination (shorthand test). 11. In such backdrop of facts and discussions, petitioner cannot claim to evaluate his Hindi transcription for awarding of marks in shorthand test as of right. There is no violation of any legal or constitutional right of petitioner nor there is any infringement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the present case. 12. As far as claim of petitioner for providing the Photostat copy of his shorthand book along with transcription under the RTI Act, 2005 is concerned, the judgment of Apex Court in case of Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) relied upon by counsel for petitioner has been considered by the Apex Court in a latter judgment in case of Angesh Kumar (supra) and thereafter, the Apex Court in para No.9 has observed as under: “9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentially of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters." 13. Petitioner has not been able to make out any case of public interest to furnish the required information by providing the photocopy of his shorthand book to him within parameters of law as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Angesh Kumar (supra), more so in relation to examination of public employment. However, this order will not debar the petitioner from making out a case to furnish the requisite information by respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and to approach before the appropriate forum for this purpose under RTI Act, if so advised. 14. As a result, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the instant writ petition within scope of Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 15. The shorthand book/response sheet along with Hindi transcription of the petitioner, be returned to the counsel appearing for the respondent-Board. 16. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.