Dismissed

Archana Kumari v. Union of India

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2023WPC/5356/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking evaluated answer sheets for a 2015 UPSC examination. The court held that the Central Public Information Officer was justified in destroying the sheets and found the petitioner guilty of an unexplained inordinate delay of approximately two years in her RTI application and three years in filing the writ.

What the court decided

AI extract

Archana Kumari Vs Union of India — RTI and Transparency | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5356 of 2021

Archana Kumari

… … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India

¶7

The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi

¶8

The Examination Controller, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi … … Respondents

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Amrit Anunay, Advocate For the Respondent-UPSC : Mr. Faizur Rahman, Advocate -----

¶12

Order No. 06 Dated: 01.03.2023

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-UPSC to provide copy of question paper as well as evaluated answer sheet to the petitioner with respect to the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination – 2015 held by the Union Public Service Commission on 23.08.2015.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination, however, she was declared unsuccessful in the same. Thereafter, she represented the respondent authorities to provide a copy of her evaluated answer sheet, however, the same was not provided. She also filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”), for providing her the evaluated answer sheet, however, the same was not furnished to her by the Central Public Information Officer, UPSC, New Delhi. The petitioner also preferred first appeal under the provisions of the Act, 2005, however, the answer sheet was not made available to her.

¶15

3. Mr. Faizur Rahman, learned counsel for the respondentUPSC, submits that the petitioner filed an application under the Act, 2005 to the Central Public Information Officer, UPSC, New Delhi on 05.06.2017 seeking evaluated copy of the answer sheet of the said examination. She was, however, informed by the Central Public Information Officer vide letter dated 10.07.2017 that the retention period of answer sheets of the Civil Services (Preliminary)

¶16

¶17

Examination – 2015 had already lapsed and were accordingly destroyed and, therefore, the same cannot be made available to her.

¶18

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the content of the writ petition, the reason assigned by the Central Public Information Officer, UPSC, New Delhi vide letter dated 10.07.2017 that the evaluated answer sheets of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination – 2015 were already destroyed on the date of filing of application under the Act, 2005 by the petitioner on 05.06.2017, appears to be justified. The petitioner has failed to explain an inordinate delay of about two years in making such application before the Central Public Information Officer, UPSC, New Delhi. The present writ petition has also been filed after unexplained delay of about three years from issuance of the said letter.

¶19

5. Hence, I see no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Manish

Archana Kumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Archana Kumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddik Khan Vs Bank of India through Its Zonal Head

C C L Employees Credit Cooperative Society Limited Barkakana Ramgarh through Anuj Kumar Bhushan Vs the State of Jharkhand through Registrar Cooperative Societies Jharkhand

Jaglal Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through the Deputy Commissioner

Dilip Kumar Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Sri Surendra Kumar Jindal Vs Dhanbad Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

National Federation of Farmers Procurement Processing and Retailing Cooperatives of India Limited Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary