ORDER : V. BHARATHIDASAN, J. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to furnish the information sought for by the petitioners with regard to marks obtained by her in the Preliminary Examination conducted for the direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. 2. According to the petitioner, by Notification No. 08/2008 dated 09.04.2018, the Commission had invited online applications for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as per the provisions prescribed under The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service [Cadre and Recruitment] Rules, 2007 as amended. The selection to the post involves a three stage process viz., (1) preliminary examination; (2) Main Examinations and (3) viva voce. She had participated in the preliminary examination conducted by the 2nd respondent. The minimum marks for a pass in the preliminary examination is 30 for SCs/SC(A)s and STs, 35 for MBCs/DCs/BC(OBCM)s and BCMs and 40 for other categories. As per notification, the candidates who have cleared the preliminary examination are entitled to be short listed for admission to the main examination at the ratio not exceeding ten times of number of vacancies by following the rule of reservation and the candidates who have secured less than the marks prescribed for a particular category for a pass will not be considered for short listing to the main examinations. 3. The question paper for preliminary examination consists of 100 objective type questions with multiple choice answers which carried 100 marks. All questions carry equal marks and 1/2 (half) mark will be deducted for each incorrect answer. The preliminary examination was conducted on 09.06.2018. 4. According to the petitioner, she had attended 53 questions out of 100 questions and as per the key answer published by the respondent Commission, she had given correct answer for 44 questions and wrong answer for 9 questions. Thus, she expected that she would get 39.5 marks. Since she belongs to backward community, the minimum marks prescribed for a pass is 35 out of 100. Therefore, she is entitled to short listed for admission to the main examinations. But, in the selection list published by the respondent Commission on 11.07.2018 for the main examinations, the register number of the petitioner did not find a place. Since she belongs to backward community, the minimum marks prescribed for a pass is 35 out of 100. Therefore, she is entitled to short listed for admission to the main examinations. But, in the selection list published by the respondent Commission on 11.07.2018 for the main examinations, the register number of the petitioner did not find a place. She has, therefore, sent an application dated 14.07.2018 to the respondent commission under The Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking copies of documents (1) Copy of her OMR sheet, (2) Total number of questions shaded by her, (3) Total number of unshaded questions by her, (4) Total marks obtained by her, (5) Total number of negative marks obtained by her, and (6) Final marks obtained by her. The respondent commission did not furnish the information sought by the petitioner citing the relevant provisions in the notification. Aggrieved by the same, she has come up with the present writ petition. 5. The respondent commission filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the petitioner has not secured the minimum qualifying marks of 35 prescribed for the BC category and therefore, she is not entitled to be short listed for admission to the main examination. The respondent commission further contended that as per the conditions in the Notification especially under para 16(e), no information with regard to the marks awarded to the candidates in each and every stage viz., preliminary examination, main examination and viva voce test, will be furnished till the finalization of recruitment process. Further in para 20 it has been clearly stated that the request from the candidate for furnishing of marks or copy of answer paper before the completion of the entire selection process will not be entertained by the Commission. Therefore, the respondent commission refused to furnish the information sought by the petitioner and the same cannot be furnished until the finalization of the recruitment process is over. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Commission and also perused the available records carefully. 7. Therefore, the respondent commission refused to furnish the information sought by the petitioner and the same cannot be furnished until the finalization of the recruitment process is over. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Commission and also perused the available records carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in an attempt to justify the claim of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had correctly answered 44 questions, but in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent commission it has been stated that she has not even obtained the minimum marks prescribed for a pass in respect of BC category. Therefore, he sought for a direction to the respondent commission to furnish the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. During the course of argument when this court pointed out the specific provisions in the notification with respect to furnishing of information sought by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent commission may, at least, be directed to produce those information for the perusal of this court. The learned counsel for the respondent Commission also fairly conceded that he would get those information from the Commission and produce the same for the perusal of this court. She had accordingly produced the xerox copies of the information in a sealed cover for the perusal of this court. 8. This court perused the information furnished by the respondent commission. On verification of the OMR Answer Sheet of the petitioner we have seen that the petitioner had given correct answers only for 40 questions and had given wrong answers for 13 questions. Therefore, she can secure only 33.5 out of 100 marks which is less than the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for BC category. In the above circumstances, as rightly contended by the respondent commission, the petitioner has not even obtained the minimum qualifying mark and therefore, she is not entitled to be short listed for the admission to the main examinations. 9. Apart from that the petitioner is not entitled to have the information as sought by her under The Right to Information Act also as per the conditions prescribed in the recruitment notification issued by the respondent Commission, hence the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. Apart from that the petitioner is not entitled to have the information as sought by her under The Right to Information Act also as per the conditions prescribed in the recruitment notification issued by the respondent Commission, hence the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.