for the post reserved for police ward and this conclusion cannot be faulted with in any manner. The second reason stated in the impugned order is that there was an allegation made by respondent No.1 that there was suddenly reduction made by the selection authorities in cut-off marks from 68 to 60 and that was done only to favour the petitioner and this allegation was found by the Tribunal as substantiated by several factors of which note has been taken of by the Tribunal which are of absence of any special circumstances and also absence of any recorded order for suddenly reducing the cut-off marks from 68 to 60. Of course, there can be no doubt about the proposition that during the process of selection the cut-off marks can be reduced because sometimes it happens that requisite number of candidates are not available for certain cut-off marks and, therefore, a need arises for reducing or changing the cut-off marks so that the pool of the candidates which is available for consideration is increased to sufficient level. In the instant case, as noted by the Tribunal, there were no special reasons found and / or recorded by the selection authority in suddenly reducing the cut-off marks from 68 to 60 and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this was done only with view to shower favour upon the petitioner.
