post. However, when the results were pronounced, he did not find his Roll Number against the list of selected candidates. Being highly dissatisfied, he submitted an application to the respondent authorities concerned by invoking the RTI Act. Accordingly, a reply was furnished to the petitioner and he found that he had scored 117 marks. He was also informed that the cutoff marks for OBC Category candidates was 118 marks. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner on going through the answer script that was furnished to him found that 2 (two) questions in Part-A of the General English Paper i.e. Nos. 33 and 40 were wrongly marked as ‘Incorrect’ despite the petitioner having answered the 2 (two) questions correctly. By referring to question No. 40, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had marked option (d) as the correct answer. However, the same was marked as a wrong answer. By referring to the Oxford dictionary, he submits that the meaning of ‘Vary’ has been provided as ‘Variation’. Since the word ‘Variation’ was not amongst the 4 (four) choices given against question No. 40, the petitioner opted for answer (d) i.e. ‘None of the above’. The petitioner having answered the question concerned correctly, the same could not have been marked as a wrong answer. Therefore, if one more mark was allotted to the petitioner against question No. 40, his total marks would be 118 marks, making him eligible to be selected for the post as the cutoff marks for OBC Category candidate was 118 marks.
