petitioner on 12.10.2020 though petitioner is aware that she is at serial No. 1 in the waiting list and duly participated in the selection process without any objection, therefore, she is estopped from challenging the selection process at later point of stage. He would further submit that on comparison of answer sheet of the petitioner and respondent No.4, it is clear that 20 mistakes have been typed by the petitioner and 14 mistakes have been typed by respondent No.4 and after final checking of answer sheet 3 more mistakes have been found in the petitioner’s answer sheet and 5 more mistakes have been found in the answer sheet of respondent No.4. if the mistakes found in the first checking and in final checking, it comes to 23 mistakes whereas with regard to respondent No. 4, in the first round 14 mistakes and in the final checking 5 more mistakes which comes to 19 mistakes in comparison with the petitioner which is less in number. Thus, respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner. The allegation made by the petitioner that there is tampering in the answer sheet without foundation is false as such denied in extensively. He would further submit that so far as non-supply of information and dismissal of the appeal by the authorities, this is not the correct forum where this issue can be agitated. Under Right to Information Act 2005, a separate forum has been constituted where the petitioner can agitate this issue, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to nonsupply of the information is not relevant for deciding the conservatory raised in this petition. He would further submit that the selection process has been done strictly in accordance with the law and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
