SHASHI KUMARI DAUGHTER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-Commission.

(2.) Matter has been pending since 2015. Despite repeated adjournments, counter affidavit has not been filed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the procedure for selection, which is contained in Annexure 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner was entitled to some marks under Clause 4 (ka) as well as (ga). He submits that, whether the petitioner was entitled to selection or not, could be determined only if the marks obtained by her in the interview under clause (ga) were made known to her. Non- supply of the marks obtained by her in the interview leave room for arbitrariness and as per her information from different sources, she has come to know that candidates, holding lesser consolidated marks than her, have been selected whereas she has not been selected. Such assertion of the petitioner has been made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition but without any details of the persons holding lesser marks. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the marks, awarded to the petitioner in the interview, are made known to her only then she would know whether her case has been considered or not.