Moumita Ghosh who was selected against her 3rd
preference got lesser marks than the applicant. The
RT1 information furnished on 27.11.2015 reveals that
applicant bearing ... 35010Q0}9I20)S
•/7 3
L/
102.? 2 as normalised marks in the 2n^ stage written
examination of CEN-03/20t2. The total number
vacancy
opening the same it was found
that applicant has secured 11.96310 normalised marks whereas, the cut of marks
for Physical Efficiency Test for SC category
proper."
3. The applicant is aggrieved as time to time normalised marks that was
given showing him as eligible for Part
Dr.S.Sibichakkaravarthy vs The Chairman on 1 January, 2019
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C
whether after commencement of the recruitment process, the concept of
normalisation of marks could have been introduced by the selection board
without even notifying
that in
2016, the marks of Ms. Preethi was increased from 53.375 to
59.85 after normalization process and the marks ... performance
appraisal, was reduced to 58.8 in the normalisation process.
It is stated that the total marks of Ms. Preethi was thus
79.85 and that
obtained 21.5 marks out of 50 marks in the computer knowledge; ie, first section of the written examination; and had obtained 77.00 marks ... allegedly got lesser marks than the qualifying marks of 20 in the first section and also lesser actual mark in the second part
computer test comprising of 50 marks and the condition was that for a candidate to attain minimum 20 marks or else his question paper ... that last unreserved candidate obtained 128.085 marks and in O.B.C. category cutoff mark was 105.051, after normalisation.
There is no challenge
obtained 21.5 marks out of 50 marks in the computer knowledge; ie, first section of the written examination; and had obtained 77.00 marks ... allegedly got lesser marks than the qualifying marks of 20 in the first section and also lesser actual mark in the second part
participated in the written examination and secured 75
out of 100 marks. The marks secured by the petitioner were the highest
amongst the SC category ... Tribunal. Respondent No.4 secured
lesser marks in the written test, but on account of higher marks in the
interview, he was selected
