Thereafter, on 15.07.2015, the petitioner attended interview for 40 marks held. Further, she was called for the counselling on 31.08.2015. In pursuance to the counselling, she was not selected on the ground that she had secured only 184 marks in total. The petitioner was very hopeful that she would certainly get more than the cut-off marks of 190 in total. Hence, the petitioner made queries as to the marks obtained by her in every exam and interview. The petitioner came to know that she was awarded 160 marks in Part-A and 24 marks in interview and in Part-B, the answer paper itself was made invalidation and not evaluated. Without the marks in Part-B exam, the petitioner has secured 184 and so if some more marks would have been given in Part-B exam, certainly the petitioner would have been selected. Therefore, the petitioner made further queries as to how the Part-B answer paper was made invalid. The petitioner applied under R.T.I Act and the petitioner got the reply with much difficulty only after approaching the Information Commission. The appellate authority at last served the reply dated 22.12.2016 stating that her answer paper in Part- B has been treated as invalid, since the petitioner has written something irrelevant to the questions on the last page of the answer paper.
