Dismissed

Megha Acharya v. Secretary R P S C Ajmer

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2013CW/11680/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and stay application. Relying on precedents, it held that disclosing answer-books before the final interview would reveal confidential evaluation information and the request lacks merit as the petitioner has no tangible basis for her claim of undervaluation.

What did the court decide?

Permission to inspect answer-sheets refused; petition rejected; stay application dismissed.

Megha Acharya Vs Secretary R P S C Ajmer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

:: ORDER ::

¶4

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.11680/ 2013

¶5

Megha Acharya Vs.

¶6

Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

¶7

Date of Order : 09.07.2013

¶8

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr.Kamal Kant Vyas for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶12

Heard Mr.Kamal Kant Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary

¶14

to issue formal notice to the respondent.

¶15

The pleaded version of the petitioner, in short, is that in response to the advertisement for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, the petitioner being eligible in terms thereof, offered her candidature whereafter, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') allowed her 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.201262. The results were declared on 14.6.2013, which disclosed that she was unsuccessful, having not scored the qualifying marks.

¶16

She was declared to have failed in the examination for not having been able to secure minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the

¶17

¶18

relevant Rules. However, according to the petitioner, she had been grossly underevaluated as she had performed very well in the examination.

¶19

Thus, being aggrieved, she submitted an application with the Commission for permitting her to inspect her answer-books in all the four papers so as to enable her to make correct assessment of her performance and evaluation thereof. Her grievance is that her request has not been acceded to, and 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 permit her to inspect their answer-sheets in all the subjects.

¶20

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

¶21

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 segm, 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.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

In Inst it ut e of Chart ered Account ant s of India Vs. Shaunak H.Sat ya & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 781 , 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.

¶26

In view of the emphatic enunciation and the legal proposition as above, 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. her

¶27

¶28

perception that her performance has not been correctly evaluated for which there is no tangible basis for this Court to act upon.

¶29

The petition therefore, lacks in merit and is rejected. The stay

¶30

application is also dismissed.

¶31

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶32

Skant/ -

¶33