Allowed

Hari Kishan v. Registrar General R H C and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2014CW/12273/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed three writ petitions seeking RTI access to evaluation answer sheets for a Judicial Service selection. The Court directed respondents to permit inspection within fifteen days, staying other submissions until after inspection. It held non-exhaustion of RTI appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to permit respective petitioners to inspect their written examination answer sheets within fifteen days with prior intimation.

Hari Kishan Vs Registrar General R H C and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12273/2014. 2. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11979/2014. 3. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12270/2014.

¶2

-1-

¶3

1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12273/2014.

¶4

Hari Kishan. VERSUS Registrar General, RHC & Others.

¶5

2. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11979/2014. Pratibha Goyal. VERSUS The Rajasthan High Court & Others.

¶6

3. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12270/2014.

¶7

Deepa Kaushik. VERSUS Registrar General, RHC & Others. 25.11.2014.

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr.Sameer Jain ] Mr.Vikas Kabra ] Counsel for petitioners. Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.V.K.Sharma, Counsel for respondent-RHC.

¶10

¶11

The instant writ petitions have been filed by the applicantspetitioners who had participated in the selection process initiated by the respondents holding selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to the advertisement dt.25.11.2013 under the scheme of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.

¶12

It is informed to this court that initially preliminary examination was conducted and those who qualified in the preliminary competitive examination were called upon to appear in the written examination which was held on 10.07.2014 and those who qualified in the written examination, were called in the interview. The interviews of such of the applicants who qualified in the written examination were held from 10.11.2014 to 22.11.2014.

¶13

The present petitioners submitted their applications, after declaration of result of written examination under Right to Information Act providing them the photocopy of their answersheets of all the subjects of written examination and one of

¶14

-2-

¶15

1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12273/2014. 2. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11979/2014. 3. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12270/2014.

¶16

the petitioner has further demanded in his application to disclose the designation of the Examiner, who has evaluated his answersheet. However, the applications came to be rejected not on merits at the relevant time but on the premise that the process of selection has still not been finalized and that clearly indicates that what has been demanded by the applicants-petitioners could be considered and made available after completion of selection process. It is informed that the process was finalized and the result of the candidates, finally selected, has been declared on 22/23.11.2014.

¶17

Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Counsel submits that since the selection process is now complete, he has instructions to inform this court that the respondents do not mind to now make available for inspection the answersheets to the petitioners, if demanded. However, a further objection is raised that there is a provision of filing appeal u/S.19 of the Right to Information Act and either of the petitioners have not availed the statutory remedy available to them and the writ petitions have been preferred, circumventing the statutory right of appeal, invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court u/Art.226 of the Constitution is not sustainable.

¶18

Counsel for petitioners further requested that their copies may be re-evaluated apart from inspection and providing of xerox copy of their answersheets, as demanded by them in their respective applications.

¶19

Since counsel for respondent has informed this court that inspection of copies demanded by the respective petitioners can

¶20

-3-

¶21

1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12273/2014. 2. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11979/2014. 3. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12270/2014.

¶22

certainly be made available to them, keeping in view the judgment of Division Bench of this court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1510/2013 decided on 13.05.2013, in our considered view, all other submissions made either for providing of xerox copy of the answersheet or disclosing the designation of Examiner, as demanded by the petitioners, may not be relevant at this stage and petitioners will be at liberty to raise at the appropriate stage.

¶23

We consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with the direction to the respondents to permit the respective petitioner to inspect their respective answersheets of written examination, as prayed for in their applications within fifteen days with prior intimation to the petitioner and as regards other submissions made, the petitioners are at liberty to keep their right reserved and to raise objections after inspection of their respective copies of written examination, if so advised in the appropriate proceedings available under the law.

¶24

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.

¶25

(AJAY RASTOGI),J.

¶26

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.

Hari Kishan v. Registrar General R H C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kishan v. Registrar General R H C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Gajendra Kumar Sharma and Ors.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Braj Mohan Gochar

Ali Mohammed Vs State Home Departmentors

Triveni Prasad Saxena Vs State and Ors.

Pratibha Goyal Vs Raj High Court and Ors.

Deepa Kaushik Vs Registrar General R H C and Ors.