Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.6. In the original counter, the respondents had not spelt out the actual reason as to why the petitioner had not received the appointment letter, though he had qualified in all preliminary tests. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.7. The additional counter was, thereafter, filed by the second respondent, in which, it is contended that the petitioner had secured 48.62% (normalised) in the Written Examination. The above marks have been given based on the scanning of OMR sheet and it is made clear that it will be subject to the manual checking of OMR sheet as per the procedure followed for selection process. The respondents would contend that during the manual checking of OMR sheet, it was found that the petitioner had given two answers for Question No.90 and a correction has been made by him. The petitioner had bubbled 2 options viz., B and C and corrected option C. This was not reflected when OMR sheet was scanned. However, during the manual checking of OMR sheet, this anomaly was found and hence, 1.25 marks were deducted. When 1.25 marks were deducted, his percentage got reduced to 47.37% which was below the 47.78% (normalised) for OBC category. Therefore, the petitioner was Not Qualified for the final list. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis