IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J., Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Rajveer Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 62 of 2026, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 66 of 2026, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 82 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge shorthand result and inspection denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. candidates entitled to timely answer sheet inspection via rti. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. respondents justify restriction citing rules and precedents. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. rti act mandates access to evaluated answer scripts. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. footnote 4 and rules do not bar inspection. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. examinees have rti right to own answer books. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. shaunak case inapplicable to personal answer sheets. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. rajasthan high court decision distinguished. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. local precedent distinguishable due to different issues. (Para 38 , 40) |
| 10. quash restriction; direct inspection of answer sheets. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ.
1) The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the result of the shorthand examination declared on 03.02.2026 pursuant to advertisement dated 18.07.2024 issued for recruitment to the post of Additional Personal Secretary in the Government Secretariat, Dehradun and in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing Footnote No. 4 to the result dated 03.02.2026 and for striking down Rule 45 and 71(7) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013 insofar as the same restricts inspection of answer sheets until completion of the entire selection process.
2) As common questions of facts and law are involved in all the petitions, the same are being decided by this common order.
3) We have heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand; and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.
4) Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General made a statement on 23.02.2026 that since vires of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013 is under challenge and the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is a separate entity under the Constitution, therefore, the State has nothing to say in respect of the Rules under challenge. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has made submissions in support of the Rules and has opposed the prayers made in the writ petitions.
5) The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’) issued an advertisement bearing No. 1/E-3/DR (APS)/2024 dated 18.07.2024 inviting application for recruitment to the post of Additional Personal Secretary in the Government Secretariat, Dehradun and in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar. As per the advertisement, 96 posts in the Government Secretariat and 03 posts in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission were to the filled. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 12.08.2024 was issued. The petitioners applied for the said posts and were issued admit cards to participate in the recruitment process. The selection process consisted of two stages. The first stage comprised of skill based examinations in Hindi typing, English typing, Computer knowledge test, Hindi shorthand, and English shorthand as a preferential qualification.
6) Only candidates qualifying the first stage were eligible to participate in the second stage, which consisted of written examinations in General Studies and Essay / Drafting. The petitioners successfully cleared the typing tests conducted between 25.11.2024 and 23.12.2024, the results of which were declared on 16.01.2025. Thereafter the petitioners qualified the computer knowledge examination conducted between 27.01.2025 and 13.02.2025, the result of which was declared on 02.08.2025. Having qualified the aforesaid examinations, the petitioners appeared in the shortha
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs Shaunak H. Satya
Unsuccessful candidates in qualifying recruitment stage entitled to inspect own evaluated answer sheets under RTI despite ongoing process; restrictive rules and footnotes quashed or read down to prev....
Disclosure of marks in public recruitment processes under RTI promotes transparency and accountability, outweighing privacy concerns, reinforcing public trust in selection integrity.
The court established that 're-checking' of examination papers does not equate to 're-evaluation', clarifying that procedural rules govern the reevaluation process to maintain the integrity of select....
Judicial review can be invoked to ensure fairness in evaluation and transparency in competitive examinations, but candidates must establish a legal right to seek re-evaluation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.