4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the selection process of Ladies Supervisor and had answered all the questions to the best of her satisfaction, but in spite of that respondent nos.7 and 8 were selected. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has done much better than respondent nos.7 and 8, but still they have been given much more marks and have been ultimately selected. He also submits that there has been gross irregularities in the selection process. The learned counsel during the course of argument has referred to para 15 of the present writ petition to submit that the petitioner has been issued the merit list as well as copies of details of marks obtained by the candidates in written examination under Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter no.2 dated 05.02.2018 issued by the Secretary to Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau – (Respondent no.5). However, the copies of the answer sheet of the candidates as requested by the petitioner has not been supplied to the petitioner till date. The learned counsel submits that as the copies of the answer sheet (OMR sheets) of the candidates as requested by the petitioner has not been supplied to the petitioner till date, the same has not been annexed along with the writ petition. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that if any document is not supplied to the petitioner under Right to Information
