JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with a sole prayer for a direction upon the respondents to revaluate the answers paper of the petitioner in pursuance to the Employment Notification No.03/2016 and publish his result treating that he has given correct answer of 50 questions instead of 49 questions and to appoint him to the post of SBO Grade II /Junior Line Man /Assistant Operator. 2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post of Switch Board Operator on daily wages vide Memo No. 2934 dated 21.08.2010 and the petitioner was given his joining on 26.08.2010, which was accordingly accepted by the respondents. 3. Thereafter, an Advertisement being Advertisement No. 03/2016 was floated by JUVNL for filling up temporary Technical posts. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner having requisite qualification and criteria, applied for the same for the post of SBO (Switch Board Operator) Grade II /Junior Line Man/Assistant Operator. As the petitioner was working under the respondents, he also submitted the proforma of experience certificate issued to him by the Electrical Executive Engineer/ Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Supply Division, Deoghar for consideration of his case for relaxation of maximum age and award of weightage marks. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written examination, which was conduced on 26.02.2017 and his Roll number was 224100980. It is specific stand of the petitioner that after examination, he compared his answer paper with the answer sheet supplied by the respondents themselves and found that his 50 answers were correct. 4. Subsequently, call letter was issued to the petitioner for document verification and the date for reporting was fixed on 18.09.2017. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared for document verification on scheduled date. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner in the Score Card displayed online showing that the number of correct answers given by the petitioner was 49 instead of 50 as claimed by the petitioner and also objections were invited from 10.11.2017 to 16.11.2017 from the aggrieved persons. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner immediately submitted his objection online that in the Score card correct answers was reflected as 49 instead of 50 and as such, the same needs to be rectified. In reply, an email was received by the petitioner in which it was informed that answers are already verified and no change in marks. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner immediately submitted his objection online that in the Score card correct answers was reflected as 49 instead of 50 and as such, the same needs to be rectified. In reply, an email was received by the petitioner in which it was informed that answers are already verified and no change in marks. Thereafter, the results were published and the name of the petitioner was not there in the list of selected candidates but as per the petitioner he was granted only 49 marks instead of 50 marks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Annexure Nos. 8 & 10, it is crystal clear that number of questions attempted by the petitioner is 125 and number of wrong answers is 75 and as per that also the correct answers is 50 but wrongly, it has been mentioned that correct answers is 49 just to eliminate the petitioner from being declared successful. Learned counsel further argues that a direction may be given upon the respondent for revaluating the OMR Sheet and as per the assessment of the petitioner, he is entitled for 50 marks, which is the marks obtained by the last selected candidate and to appoint the petitioner. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards OMR sheet of the petitioner itself and submits that petitioner has wrongly marked the answer at question No. 59 and as such, there was no occasion to allot 50 marks, rightly he was allotted 49 marks as per the correct questions attempted by him. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Annexure Nos 8 & 10 are unrevised score card, which after objections of the candidates, was revised. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly, the petitioner has obtained only 49 marks, which is one mark less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate and as such, rightly he was not offered letter of appointment. The confusion created by Annexure Nos. The confusion created by Annexure Nos. 8 & 10 has been clarified by bringing on record OMR sheet itself. Bringing on record the same shows the clarity and transparency adopted by the respondents for appointment of the candidates. This Court has all praise for attempt of JUVNL in bringing transparency in recruitment process and also for fair submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-JUVNL, Mr. Rahul Kumar. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is very fairly submitted that as per revised result/answer, admittedly the petitioner has obtained 49 marks and as such, no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in the instant case. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.