ORDER :

I.A.Nos.7-8 and 13-14 of 2013 in SLP(C)Nos.11977-11978 of 2012

1. Ms.Veena Adwani, the applicant who has appeared in person, requests that she may be allowed to withdraw the applications for impleadment as party to SLP(C)Nos.11977-11978/2012 with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in the matter of destruction of her answer sheets by filing a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. The request of Ms. Adwani is accepted and the applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.

3. If the applicant files an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short' 'the Act') within one month from today along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 21(3) of the Act, then the Tribunal shall entertain the prayer for condonation of delay and decide the O.A. on merits.

I.A. Nos. 9-10 and 11-12 of 2013 in SLP(C)Nos. 11977-11978 of 2012

4. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw these applications.

5. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the applications are dismissed as withdrawn.

SLP (C) No(s). 11977-11978/2012, SLP (C) NOs. 11979-11980/2012 and SLP (C) NO. 9333 of 2012

6. These petitions are directed against orders dated 5.10.2010 and 29.7.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 6586/2010 and batch and RP No. 490/2010, respectively.

7. For the sake of convenience, we have briefly taken into consideration the factual matrix of SLP (C)Nos. 11977-11978/2012.

8. In response to the advertisements issued by the Union Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission'), petitioner Dr. Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar submitted applications for recruitment to Indian Administrative Services and other Allied Services. He cleared the preliminary examinations held in 2007, 2008 and 2009 but did not succeed in the main examination (written test and interview). After seeking some information by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Act and questioned the method of moderation adopted by the Commission and prayed as under:.

"(i) Direct the respondent to produce all the records relating to the case including attendance sheets/Proforma F containing details of supplements taken, the answer books of the Applicants in all the subject and verify the irregularities committed by the Respondent in the evaluation of the answer books; and

(ii) Direct the respondent to produce attendance sheets/Proforma F Containing details of supplements used) of all applicants to verify the number of extra sheet used by them and verify the irregularities committed by the Respondent;

(iii) Direct the respondent to produce raw and moderated marks of applicants and all other candidates in Civil Services (Main) Examination 2008 to verify justness of moderation system;

(iv) To strike down the system of moderation/scaling applied by UPSC after asking UPSC to explain the system;

(v) Direct the Respondent to bring uniformity on the system of awarding marks in personality test by reducing excessive subjectivity;

(vi) Permit the Applicants to carry out the inspection of the answer books in the Court.

(vii) direct the respondent to reexamine and re-evaluate the answer books of the Applicants where the irregularities are found to be existing in the evaluation process of Civil Service (Main) Examination 2008; and

(viii)direct the Respondent to declare the Applicants pass in the Civil Service (Main) Examination 2008 if after revaluation and proper valuation they get more marks than the mark achieved by the last candidate in the result who was called for interview and consider them for appointment."

9. The Tribunal briefly adverted to the factual matrix of the case and dismissed the original application vide order dated 13.5.2010 by recording the following observations:

"4. Identical OAs raising identical iss