The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to seek re-evaluation or certified copies of answer sheets under the RTI Act is subject to the rules and regulations governing examinations, and the presumption of correctness of the key answers.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - CM No.25003/2020 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

1. W.P.(C) No.7494/2020 & CM No.25002/2020 (for interim directions)

3. The 23 petitioners, being personnel of the respondents No.3&4 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), of the rank of Inspectors/SubInspectors, have filed this petition (i) impugning the orders dated 11th May, 2020 and 7th July, 2020 whereby the respondent No.2 Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) has rejected the request of the petitioners, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking certified copies of their answer sheets of Paper III of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 2nd February, 2020, on the ground that the respondent No.2 ITBP is exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, to provide the same; and, (ii) seeking mandamus directing the respondent No.2 ITBP to either provide the certified copies of the answer sheets or in the alternative to re-evaluate the answer sheets of Paper III of the LDCE held on nd February, 2020 and consequently re-declare the result of all candidates who appeared in the said examination.

4. The counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice.

5. Being prima facie of the opinion that the petition is not maintainable and/or has no merits and notice thereof does not deserve to be issued, we have heard the counsel for the petitioners at length and have also heard the counsel for the respondents.

6. It is the case of the petitioners, (i) that the petitioners, while serving as Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors in the respondents No.3&4 CRPF, had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), through LDCE, pursuant to an advertisement dated 28th June, 2019 issued by the respondent No.2 ITBP, being the Nodal Authority for conducting the said examination; (ii) that the said recruitment comprised of Written Examination, Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Interview and Personality Test; (iii) that the written examination in turn comprised of Paper I (Intelligence Test and General Knowledge), Paper II (Professional Skill) and Paper III (Essay, Precise Writing and Comprehension); (iv) that the petitioners appeared in the written examination on 2nd February, 2020; (v) that Paper I and Paper II of the said written examination comprised of Multiple Choice Questions checked through Optical Mark Reader; (vi) that the result of Paper I and Paper II of the written examination was declared on 4th February, 2020; (vii) that a total of 1046 candidates were declared ''pass'' in Paper I and Paper II and became eligible for PST/PET; (viii) that an additional list of 126 candidates declared ''pass'', after re-checking of Paper I and Paper II, was declared shortly thereafter; (ix) that the petitioners were declared ''pass''; (x) that the result of Paper III was to be announced after conducting PST/PET; (xi) that the petitioners were called for PST/PET held between 5th February, 2020 and 10th February, 2020 and qualified therein also; (xii) that however in the result declared on 24th April, 2020 of 145 successful candidates, the names of none of the petitioners found mention; (xiii) that only 34 candidates from CRPF were selected for Interview and Personality Test; (xiv) that the result declared on 24th April, 2020 was full of anomalies and arbitrariness; (xv) that the LDCE was conducted for 135 vacancies; (xvi) that the respondents failed to disclose how many marks were obtained by the candidates who did not make it to the final list declared on 24th April, 2020; (xvii) that the act of the respondents of calling only 145 candidates for Interview and Personality Test, is contrary to the law laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 to the effect that the number of candidates to be called for interview should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the