Allowed

Smt Renukadevi v. Karnataka Public Service Commission

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/11075/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement refusing her evaluated answer scripts of the Gazetted Probationer Groups A and B 2015 examination. Following a Coordinate Bench order that candidates may obtain their own evaluated answer scripts with marks, the writ petition was allowed and the endorsement quashed.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 15.02.2021 quashed; PIO directed to furnish petitioner's answer sheets for all subjects within four weeks.

Smt Renukadevi Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25053 WP No. 11075 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11075 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT RENUKADEVI, D/O MALLINATH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, SIDHARTH NILAYA, JYOTHINAGAR, NEAR OKALY CAMP, KALBURGI - 585 105 AND NOW R/AT NO.17, MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA, LAKSHMI SAGAR LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDAH, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDAH, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.SINCHANA M. R., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶16

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 15.2.2021 ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE RIGHT TO

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:25053 WP No. 11075 of 2021

¶19

INFORMATION ACT AND THE DECISION OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P.NO.8676/2020 DATED 26.8.2020 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The endorsement dated 15.02.2021 issued by Respondent No. 2, which rejected the petitioner’s request for the answer scripts of the Gazetted Probationer Groups A and B examination for the year 2015 under the Right to Information Act, is under challenge.

¶23

Learned counsel for the parties fairly concedes that the issue in this petition was examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.8676/2020, by order dated 26.08.2020. It was ruled that a candidate who has appeared for an examination conducted by the Public Service Commission can seek copies of their own evaluated answer scripts, along with the marks allotted to each question. Therefore, this petition is to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned petition.

¶24

3. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶27

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 15.02.2021 issued by Respondent No. 2 at Annexure-F is hereby quashed.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25053 WP No. 11075 of 2021

¶29

iii) Respondent No. 2 is directed to furnish the petitioner’s answer sheets for all subjects from the main examination of Gazetted Probationer Groups A and B 2015, bearing registration No.53209, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

iv) Pending IA does not survive for consideration.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Smt Renukadevi v. Karnataka Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Renukadevi v. Karnataka Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Anand Ginning Factory Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kalabyraweshwara Transport Vs Union of India

Sri. Lohith.L Vs the Commissioner

Dr K N Venkatesh B.E(Civil) Llm Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrappa Vs the General Manager

Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Special District Magistrate (North)