good' entry or any entry below the bench mark is clearly arbitrary and
hence illegal as has been held by the Apex Court ... good' entry when the bench mark for
promotion was 'very good' was arbitrary and hence illegal. In the decision
consideration of the same by the respondents in awarding the
marks is arbitrary and illegal. According to the applicant, if his M.Phil
qualification were ... been number 2 in the
select list with an aggregate of 56.4 marks.
2. The contention of the official respondents 1&2 is that
poor performance in the examination. The cut off marks out of the total of 280 marks was 80 for OBC category ... Therefore, we do not find any arbitrariness in the matter of fixing the cut of marks by the DSSSB in terms of the communication dated
respondents with any rationality. Hence the same should be treated as arbitrary.
8. Mrs. Jyoti Singhs second set of contention was on the ACRs ... crucial date or cut off date arbitrary unless the date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view
shortlisted on the basis of educational qualification, academic records, percentage of marks etc. or through a screening test at the discretion of the Commission. From ... shortlisting the candidates. The respondents had put the cut-off marks at 70% and above in MA for UR category, 65% and above
marks in Rule 219 (g) of the Railway Manual.
No doubt, it is correct that a candidate who obtains 60% marks of the aggregate qualifies ... examination. It is more so, marks for seniority having been set aside by the Honble Supreme Court as arbitrary. Therefore, for the same reason
Luthras argument would be on the alleged arbitrariness behind the prescription of the cut off marks in question. This would be on the ground ... respondents there was no arbitrariness on their part in prescribing the overall cut off marks. It is submitted that the cut off marks
marks. The applicant has secured 146
marks out of 150. As there has been a a narrow difference in the marks
secured, the applicant ... would have scored lesser marks, had the awarding of marks to them was
properly done are clearly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The
applicant would
cannot be said that awarding of 400 marks A, B, C and D field training and 400 marks for internal assessment is un-channeled ... already stated above, in case there is arbitrariness or some favoritism in awarding the marks under the aforesaid head to some candidates
cannot be said that awarding of 400 marks A, B, C and D field training and 400 marks for internal assessment is un-channeled ... already stated above, in case there is arbitrariness or some favoritism in awarding the marks under the aforesaid head to some candidates
