SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1276

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Amitava Roy, Veerendr Singh Siradhana, JJ.
Ravindra Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Registrar General Cum Appellate Authority, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1510 of 2013.
Decided On : 13-05-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Rajendra Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Rachit Sharma, Advocate.

The examining body is not liable to give any citizen any such information relating to questions papers, solutions/model answers, and instructions relating to any particular examination before the date thereof.

Headnote:

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 - SECTION 8(1)(j) - INSPECTION OF EVALUATED ANSWER BOOK - CONFIDENTIALITY OF SELECTION PROCESS - REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF EVALUATED ANSWER BOOK AND CERTIFIED COPY THEREOF - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an advocate, appeared in the written examination for direct recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge. He scored 149 marks in aggregate but could not secure the minimum pass marks in the Language Paper. He sought inspection of his evaluated answer book and a certified copy thereof under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 2005). The request was rejected by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)-cum-State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, and the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur-cum-Appellate Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reasons cited by the respondent-authorities in declining to accede to the request made by the petitioner cannot be repudiated to be illegal, illogical, or absurd. The court observed that safeguards inbuilt in the Act 2005 ensure that revelation of information thereunder should not be in conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the Government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, and preservation of confidential and sensitive information.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer book and a certified copy thereof under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497 and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 781 to hold that information's relating to intellectual property, question papers, solutions/model answers, and instructions, in regard to any particular examination cannot be disclosed before the examination is held as it would harm the competitive position of innumerable third parties taking the same.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma for the respondents.

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is an advocate practicing at Jaipur. He had earlier appeared in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission wherein he had qualified in the written examinations, but remained unsuccessful in the interview. He thereafter appeared in the written examination held for direct recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge on 30.6.2010 by the respondent No.1 and being successful was called for the interview. However, the said process was canceled. Subsequent thereto, by a notification dated 19.7.2011, a fresh process was initiated for appointment by direct recruitment to 39 vacant posts in the Cadre of District Judge. He, having offered his candidature, was allowed to appear in the written examination, and his allotted roll number was 3430. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written examination held on 5.5.2012 and 6.5.2012 and the results thereof were declared on 6.8.2012. He has averred that in aggregate though he had scored 149 marks, he could not secure the minimum pass marks in the Language Paper, and therefore, he was not declared successful in the written examination. Situated thus, he submitted application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2005'), seeking the following relief:-

"1. I want to inspect the evaluated answer book of paper 3rd Language of the examination for recruitment to the District Judge Cadre year 2011.

2. I want to take certified copy of the aforesaid evaluated answer Book (Paper 3rd Language of the examination for recruitment to the District Judge Cadre year 2011)"

3. The request was declined by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)-cum-State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur with the observation that the information sought for can be provided after the conclusion of the entire process of examination i.e. Interview and declaration of the final results. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur-cum-Appellate Authority, which was also rejected on the ground that the process of recruitment had not been concluded.

4. The respondents, in their reply, while refuting the contention that the petitioner's request for inspection of his answer-book and the certified copy thereof had been illegally rejected, also asserted that his perception that he had performed better in Language Paper is misplaced. According to the answering respondents, the ground to decline the petitioner's request sought for under the Act 2005 was valid.

5. Mr. Prasad has insistently argued that the written examination being over as the results thereof had been declared, the reasons cited for not acceding to the request of the petitioner is patently illegal. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-authorities under the Act 2005 had, in rejecting the petitioner's request, misread the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497 .

6. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, to reinforce his arguments, while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H.Satya & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 781 , has urged that having regard to the grounds taken, the rejection of the petitioner's prayer was on a correct interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (supra) and for the sake of inviolable confidentiality of the exercise underway.

7. We have considered the pleadings with the supporting documents as well as the arguments made.

8. That the scheme of the competitive examination





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top