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

2026 Supreme(UK) 72

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate, General assisted by Mr. Sachin, Mohan Singh Mehta, learned Brief Holder, Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel

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 prevent irreversible prejudice.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 22 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 226 - Public Service Commission Rules - Rules 45, 71(7) - Recruitment to public posts - Qualifying shorthand examination - Candidates declared unsuccessful entitled to inspect evaluated shorthand notebooks and typed answer sheets notwithstanding ongoing selection process - Restrictive footnote in result notice quashed; Rule 71(7) read down to permit access to eliminated candidates as denial causes irreversible prejudice post second stage - Evaluated answer scripts constitute information accessible under RTI overriding inconsistent exam rules/bye-laws unless exempted under Section 8. (Paras 11, 22-29, 41)

(B) Precedents on non-disclosure of question papers, model answers, examiner instructions inapplicable to examinee's own evaluated answer scripts - No prejudice to third parties or process integrity by permitting inspection to unsuccessful candidates at qualifying stage. (Paras 30-39)

Facts of the case:
Candidates qualified initial skill tests including typing and computer knowledge but declared unsuccessful in shorthand examination; sought inspection of notebooks and answer sheets denied per footnote restricting access till final result; challenged result, footnote and rules restricting inspection till process completion.

Findings of Court:
Footnote quashed to extent denying inspection to unsuccessful candidates; Rule 71(7) read down; petitioners permitted to inspect and obtain copies of shorthand notebooks and answer sheets.

Issues: Legality of denying inspection of answer sheets to candidates eliminated at qualifying stage pending further recruitment stages; compatibility of restrictive footnote and rules with RTI rights.

Ratio Decidendi: Right to access own evaluated answer scripts under RTI prevails by Section 22 over exam rules; no exemption under Section 8 applies; transparency essential for fairness in recruitment; delaying access to eliminated candidates irreversible once process advances without aiding integrity.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

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

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