Saroj Meena vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Amitava Roy, C.J.—Heard Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue formal notice to the respondent.

The pleaded version of the petitioner, in short, is that in response to the advertisement for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, the petitioners being eligible in terms thereof, offered his candidature where after, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Commission'') allowed him to participate in the related written examination conducted from 21.3.2013 to 24.3.2013. The petitioner was issued the admit card with Roll No. 201393 and he duly took the said examination. The results were declared on 14.6.2013, which disclosed that he was unsuccessful, having not scored the qualifying marks.

He was declared to have failed in the examination for not having been able to secure minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the relevant Rules. However, according to the petitioner, he had performed very well in the examination.

It is submitted that despite the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondent is not providing him the copy of answer sheets etc. so as to enable them to make correct assessment of their performance and evaluation thereof. Instead, interview of the successful candidates has been scheduled to be held on 10.7.2013. The petitioner thus seeks judicial intervention for direction to the respondent to provide him to photocopy of the answer-sheet(s) or at least to permit him to inspect his answer-sheets.

We have duly considered the pleaded averments and the submissions in endorsement thereof.

In terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended upto 2012) (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''), the process of recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, as involved herein, has two broad segments, namely, written examination followed by interview of the successful candidates. Both these processes of evaluation of the candidates constitute the selection process as a whole and cannot be segregated. The process of selection thus, gets completed only after the interview is conducted and the candidates are selected on the basis of their overall performance for recruitment.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (supra), had observed, in the context of the Right to Information Act, 2005, 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.

In The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court also, with reference to the said enactment, had held that informations 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 competitive position of innumerable third parties taking the same. It was clearly underlined as well that the examining body is not liable to give any citizen any such information relating to any particular examination before the date thereof.

In view of the emphatic enunciation and the legal proposition as above, albeit in the context of the scheme of Right to Information Act, 2005, we are of the unhesitant opinion that considering the nature of the ongoing selection process as stipulated by the Rules and the bearing of the results of the written examination on the eventual selection of the candidates, the request of the petitioner, as made in the instant petition, ought not to be entertained at this stage. This request, we construe, if allowed, would undermine the confidentiality of the exercise underway, apart from affecting the third party rights. Besides, the very basis of the relief sought for by the petitioner is speculative i.e. his perception that his performance has not been correctly evaluated for which there is no tangible basis for this Court to act upon. The petition therefore, lacks in merit and is rejected.