1. AN examinee has come a-knocking imploring that he be granted another look at his answered paper, citing a statute standing on the bedrock of a right ordained unto every citizen by the Constitution. The only question, one of some importance, that is raised in the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution is whether an examinee has access to his evaluated answerscript under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. THE petitioner appears to be a reasonably meritorious student. He obtained 91. 6 per cent in his Madhyamik (Class X) Examinations and 80. 8 per cent in his higher Secondary (Class XII) Examinations. He enrolled for the mathematics honours course of the Calcutta University in Presidency College ? where admission itself is an acknowledgement of merit. In 2006, the petitioner took his part I Bachelor's degree examinations and secured a somewhat modest 52 per cent score. In the following year he appeared for his Part II Examinations and secured 208 marks out of a maximum of 400. The petitioner was particularly aggrieved by his being awarded 28 out of 100 in the fifth paper. The petitioner applied for a post-publication scrutiny, seeking re-evaluation of his answerscripts in the fifth and sixth papers in accordance with the rules prescribed by the University. On review, the marks awarded to him in the fifth paper increased by four and a fresh, corrected mark-sheet was issued to him.

The petitioner claims that he was called for an interview for the integrated phd programme in mathematics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, bangalore Centre after clearing the written examination there for. He claims that his poor marks in the second leg of his Bachelor's course led to his exclusion from the final list. The petitioner avers that the poor marks stand in the way of his obtaining admission for the master's programme in any of the better universities. The petitioner cleared the written examination for the integrated doctoral programme in mathematical sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, bangalore and following the interview, was placed eighth on the merit list. The petitioner's provisional application fell through as he failed to obtain a first class in his Bachelor's course.

Dear Sir/madam,

On August 14, 2007 the petitioner made a request to obtain his University answerscript in appropriate format to the State Public Information Officer under the Right to Information act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). Such officer rejected the application by a writing of September 17, 2007 which is the subject matter of the challenge in the present proceedings. The said officer's cryptic rejection runs as follows:

Re. :-Your Application dt. 14/8/07 Under R. T. I. Act, 2005.

In response to your above application I am to inform you that it has been decided that henceforth no inspection of any answer script of any examination conducted by the University shall be allowed to any applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Thus we cannot entertain your application and the same is rejected.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd /

State public Information Officer

And

Registrar.

The letter appears to be on a printed format where there is a blank left for the date at the top; there is a space left for the examinee's name and address being inserted; and, the date of the application is also left open to be filled up. The officer has used his pen to fill up the date of the letter, the name and address of the examinee, the date of the application and has inserted the word "been" as there is an obvious mistake in the printed form. The officer acknowledged the receipt of an application under the said Act but did not deal with the application in the manner provided by the said Act and it is such action and the stereo-typed decision evident from the letter of rejection that has prompted the writ petition to be entertained rather than requiring the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy ordinari