AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 252 wordsL. Narasimha Roddy, J
The applicant took part in the selection process for the of Assistant Teacher (Primary) advertised in the year 2019 under Post Code 15/2019. She
was not s elected and a representation was made in this behalf. The applicant contends that on verification of the relevant papers, she was confident
that she would get 135 marks, whereas, she was awarded only 107.04 marks and the respondents did not select her. In this background, she filed this
OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to provide the link and download the real data (response) entered in the system at the time of exam with
details of total questions attempted, questions left un-attempted, wrong answers, marks deducted etc., and for consequential reliefs.
We heard Shri AnujSaini, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. EshaMazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission.
It is not uncommon that any candidate who appears in a competitive examination would have his or her own expectations. But, what ultimately
counts is the marks awarded by the examiner. Except raising some general issues and Complaining that she was not awarded marks as per her
expectations, nothing specific is raised. Though, it is mentioned that answers to some of the questions were not proper, here again the applicant is not
specific.
We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending M.A shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.