Sunder Lal vs State Of Haryna And Others

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

213 CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026

SUNDER LAL
...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Ishita Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Senior DAG, Haryana.



KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated
22.01.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Chief Information
Commissioner, State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby the
request of the petitioner for supply of videography of the Band Skill Test
conducted during the recruitment process for the post of Bandsman
(Constable) in Haryana Police has been declined.
2. Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case, the petitioner, who
belongs to the Backward Class-B (BCB) category, applied for the aforesaid
post pursuant to advertisement dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by
respondent No.2. The selection process, as prescribed under the
advertisement, comprised a Knowledge Test carrying 20 marks, a qualifying
Physical Screening Test, a Band Skill Test carrying 60 marks and other
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 2-
prescribed procedures under the relevant service rules. The petitioner
qualified the Knowledge Test conducted on 07.01.2024 as well as the
Physical Screening Test conducted on 27.01.2024. The lists of candidates
qualifying the aforesaid tests were published on the official website of
Haryana Police and have been appended as Annexures P-2 and P-3,
respectively. The Band Skill Test, which carried the highest weightage in the
selection process, was conducted under videography.
3. The final list of candidates recommended by the Selection
Board for enrolment as Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police was
published in February, 2024 (Annexure P-4). According to the petitioner, the
said list merely reflected the names of the selected candidates without
disclosing the detailed breakup of marks. Upon perusal thereof, he came to
know that one Jaibir had been selected against the sole advertised post in the
BCB category in the Brass Band. Questioning the selection, the petitioner
filed CWP No.20239 of 2025 on 15.07.2025. During the pendency of the
said petition, the State filed a reply through the Additional Director General
of Police, Karnal Range, Karnal, placing on record the final selection list
along with the detailed breakup of marks obtained by the selected candidates
(Annexure P-5). The comparative marks of the petitioner and the selected
candidate were thus disclosed. Both had secured 13.6 marks in the
Knowledge Test, whereas a substantial difference was reflected in the marks
awarded in the Band Skill Test. Vide order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-
6), the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to
the petitioner to avail his remedies against the result in accordance with law.
4. It is in this background that the petitioner claims disclosure of
the videography of the Band Skill Test, contending that the same is the
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 3-
contemporaneous record of the assessment and would enable him to
examine the fairness of the evaluation, particularly when the said test carried
60 marks out of the total 100 marks.
5. The petitioner had earlier submitted an application dated
11.11.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the RTI
Act’), seeking information relating to candidates belonging to the BCB
category, including their answer sheets, marks obtained and videography of
the Band Skill Test. The SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnal, vide order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), declined the
information on the ground that it pertained to other applicants and was
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The first
appeal preferred by the petitioner was also decided on the same grounds vide
order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the State Information Commission, Haryana, by way of a second
appeal (Annexure P-9). While the marks obtained by the candidates were
directed to be released, the request for disclosure of the videography was
declined on the ground that no material had been placed on record to
establish malice or prima facie subversion of the assessment process. The
Commission observed that in the absence of prima facie wrongdoing or
demonstrable harm to public interest, disclosure could not be directed.
Hence, the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
videography of the Band Skill Test is not private material but constitutes the
contemporaneous record of a public recruitment examination conducted by a
State authority. It is argued that the right to information cannot be made
dependent upon the information seeker first establishing wrongdoing in the
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 4-
selection process, particularly when the very purpose of seeking the
recording is to examine the fairness of the assessment. Learned counsel
further submits that withholding the recording would deprive the petitioner
of the opportunity to examine the evaluation undertaken by the Selection
Board. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon State of
Assam and others v. Arabinda Rabha and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
523; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and
others, (2011) 8 SCC 781; Union Public Service Commission v. N.
Sugathan, LPA No.797 of 2011, decided on 12.12.2011; Kewal Singh
Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, AIR 2011 Chh 143; and
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and
another, (2012) 13 SCC 61.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned
order does not suffer from any infirmity. While drawing the attention of this
court to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, she
submits that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. A total of 422 candidates who had qualified the
Knowledge Test were shortlisted for the subsequent stages. Out of them, 371
candidates participated in the Physical Screening Test, of whom 222
qualified. Thereafter, 194 candidates who also cleared the Physical
Measurement Test were found eligible for the further recruitment process,
subject to document verification and the Band Skill Test. These candidates
were called for the Band Skill Test on 28.01.2024. It is further submitted
that the total 100 marks prescribed for the recruitment comprised 20 marks
for the Knowledge Test, 10 marks for Additional Qualification, 10 marks for
Miscellaneous and 60 marks for the Band Skill Test. The Band Skill Test, in
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 5-
turn, comprised 25 marks for Knowledge of Scales and Instrument, 25 marks
for Self Choice Music and 10 marks for Sight Reading. Learned State
counsel further submits that the petitioner secured 38.6 marks in the entire
recruitment process, comprising 13.6 marks in the Knowledge Test, 3 marks
for the NCC Certificate and 22 marks in the Band Skill Test, whereas Jaibir
secured 53.6 marks, comprising 13.6 marks in the Knowledge Test and 40
marks in the Band Skill Test. The petitioner had obtained 10 out of 25 marks
in Knowledge of Scales and Instrument, 12 out of 25 marks in Self Choice
Music and zero out of 10 marks in Sight Reading. On the other hand, Jaibir
had secured 15 out of 25 marks in Knowledge of Scales and Instrument, 20
out of 25 marks in Self Choice Music and 5 out of 10 marks in Sight
Reading. Thus, according to the State, Jaibir was selected on account of
higher merit. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for the Bass
Drum instrument, whereas Jaibir had applied for the Bb Clarinet instrument,
though both belonged to the Brass Band category. The request for disclosure
of the videography is, therefore, opposed on the ground that the same
pertains to other applicants and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI
Act.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
9. The question which arises for consideration is whether the
videography of the Band Skill Test, conducted as part of a public
recruitment process, can be withheld merely on the ground that it relates to
other candidates and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
10. In Union Public Service Commission v. N. Sugathan (supra) ,
the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed that an unsuccessful
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 6-
candidate participating in a selection process for public employment is
entitled to know the reasons which weighed with the selecting authority in
preferring another candidate over him. It was held that, without such
information, an unsuccessful candidate would not be in a position to
ascertain whether the selection was arbitrary or to seek appropriate judicial
review against any irregularity in the appointment process. The Court also
emphasised that information relating to the qualifications and experience of
a person selected for a public post cannot ordinarily be withheld on the
ground of confidentiality, particularly when such information has a direct
nexus with the public employment sought by the candidate. The relevant
paras of the said judgment read thus:
“7. Moreover the information seeker i.e. the respondent herein in
the present case is not a stranger to the selection process but the
father of another applicant. Certainly an applicant to a public post
who has been overlooked is entitled to know the reasons which
prevailed with the appointing/recommending authority for
preferring another over him. Without such information, the
applicant who has remained unsuccessful would not even be in a
position to know as to why he/she was not appointed and another
preferred over him/her and would also not be able to seek judicial
review against the irregularity if any in the appointment/selection
process. Moreover, we are unable to fathom the
secrecy/confidentiality if any as to the educational qualification
and experience of the selectee to a public post; such information
ordinarily also is in public domain and educational qualifications
and experience are something to be proud of rather than to hide in
a closet. Whosoever on the basis of his educational qualification
and experience seeks appointment particularly to a public office
cannot claim any secrecy/confidentiality with respect thereto.
8. It is also not the plea of the appellant UPSC that the selectee
had furnished the information as to his/her educational
qualification and/or experience to the appellant UPSC with any
rider as to its disclosure as in fact he could not. We also find
Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) under which exemption is claimed,
themselves carve out an exception of the disclosure of the
information being in public interest. We are of the view that
disclosure of information as to the educational qualification and
experience of a person selected/shortlisted for a public post is in
public interest in as much as the selectee is seeking the benefit of
appointment to the public post on the basis thereof and the
competitors in the appointment process, if not the public are
definitely entitled to know the qualifications and experience of the
occupant of such public post. The Apex Court in The Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC
781 held that the object of the RTI Act is inter alia to ensure
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 7-
transparency and bring in accountability. It was further held that
examining bodies should change their old mindset and tune
themselves to the new regime of disclosure of maximum
information.

xxx xxx xxx

13. In this case also the defence of the appellant UPSC was of
Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The CIC held that since length of
experience was an eligibility condition for being invited for the
interview, the experience certificate furnished by the candidates
could not be treated as personal information and directed the
appellant UPSC to provide photocopies of the experience
certificates of the candidates who had been invited for the
interview. The respondent/information seeker in the present case
was himself one of the applicants and had not been invited for the
interview. The learned Single Judge has while dismissing the writ
petition held that photocopies of experience certificates cannot be
held to be invasion of privacy or requiring the confidentiality
under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and further held that disclosure of
such information could also be said to be in larger public interest.
14. The challenge by the appellant UPSC in this appeal is the same
as in LPA 797/2011 (supra) and need is as such not felt to reiterate
what has already been observed hereinabove. Those who are
knocked out before the interview even and did not have a chance to
compete any further, are definitely entitled to know that they have
not been knocked out arbitrarily to deprive them from even
competing any further.
15. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal also and
dismiss the same.”

11. Similarly, in Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh
(supra), the High Court of Chhattisgarh, while considering the applicability
of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to information relating to a departmental
competitive examination, held that the conduct and evaluation of an
examination for promotion to a higher post in a Government department
constitutes a public activity. It was observed that the evaluated answer sheets
sought by the candidates themselves could not be withheld by treating them
as personal information. The Court further noticed that the process of
evaluation and the marks awarded thereupon do not, merely by themselves,
constitute information protected from disclosure under the aforesaid
provision. It was observed that:
“13. In for far as the other reason for rejection of the application,
invoking the provision contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of
2005, that the information sought relates to personal information,
the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity
or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 8-
the individual is concerned, the same is equally misconceived in
law and deserves rejection. In a case where such personal
information has relationship to any public activity or interest,
exemption could not be claimed. In the present case, the petitioner
has sought supply of certified copy of answer sheets written by they
themselves. None of the petitioners in the two writ petitions have
sought any personal information relating to any third party or
personal information either of the examiner or the person who has
conducted examination or any other candidate who appeared in
the examination. Moreover, this Court has no hesitation in saying
that the conduct of examination in the present case by the
departmental agency for the purposes of promotion from lower
rank to higher rank in Govt. department, are not private activities,
but in public domain. Therefore, where a candidate asked for
information regarding his own performance in a departmental
competitive examination and in that connection demands copy of
his own answer sheets which are assessed/ evaluated by the
examiner, without asking for any personal information of any other
person concerning with the process and conduct of examination,
provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005 are not at all
attracted. It also cannot be said that said disclosure of information
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of some
individual. There are no factual foundations laid in the pleading of
the respondents nor borne-out from the records of the case. The
checking and evaluation of answer sheet by an examiner and the
marks given by him upon assessment of performance has nothing
to do with the privacy of either the examiner or those who are
responsible for conducting the examination. In the case of Dr. Mrs.
Anson Sebastian (supra), where one employee sought information
pertaining to documents relating to domestic enquiry against
another employee and also for getting entries in confidential
report of six other employees of the appellant, repelling the claim
of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005, the Division
Bench of High Court of Kerala held that provision of
Section 8(1)(j) are not attracted. It was held that the confidential
reports of employees managed by the employer cannot be treated
to be records pertaining to personal information of an employee,
disclosure of which can be said to be exempted under
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The case of the petitioners in the two
petitions in hand, stands on a much better footing. Therefore, I am
of the considered opinion that the rejection of petitioners
application for supply of certified copies of their
assessed/evaluated answer sheet is illegal as no exemption could
be claimed under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of
2005.”
12. The aforesaid decisions, though rendered in the context of
disclosure of information relating to qualifications, experience and evaluated
answer sheets, underscore the importance of transparency in selection
processes undertaken for public employment. The principle emerging
therefrom is that information having a direct nexus with a public recruitment
process cannot be denied merely by labelling it as personal information,
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 9-
without examining the nature of the information sought and the applicability
of the statutory exemption.
13. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute
that the Band Skill Test was an integral component of the recruitment
process and carried 60 marks out of the total 100 marks. The recording
sought by the petitioner pertains to the performance of candidates in the said
test and constitutes the contemporaneous record of the assessment
undertaken by the Selection Board. The petitioner himself participated in the
recruitment process and seeks the recording in order to examine the
assessment which substantially contributed to the final merit.
14. The comparative marks placed on record by the State also show
the relevance of the information sought. Both the petitioner and Jaibir
secured 13.6 marks in the Knowledge Test. The petitioner was additionally
awarded 3 marks for his NCC Certificate. However, in the Band Skill Test,
the petitioner secured 22 marks out of 60, whereas Jaibir secured 40 marks
out of 60. Consequently, the petitioner obtained an overall score of 38.6
marks as against 53.6 marks obtained by Jaibir. Thus, the difference in the
overall merit is substantially attributable to the marks awarded in the Band
Skill Test, the very assessment whose recording is sought by the petitioner.
15. The contention of the State that the petitioner had applied for
Bass Drum whereas Jaibir had applied for Bb Clarinet has also been noticed.
However, the said distinction does not, by itself, answer the question as to
whether the recording of the assessment conducted by the Selection Board is
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The present
proceedings are not concerned with determining the comparative musical
proficiency of the two candidates or the correctness of the marks awarded to
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 10-
them. The limited issue is whether the petitioner can be denied access to the
contemporaneous record of a test conducted as part of a public recruitment
process.
16. The further reasoning adopted by the State Information
Commission that the petitioner was required to establish prima facie malice
or subversion of the selection process before seeking disclosure also cannot
be accepted. The right to seek information cannot be made dependent upon
the information seeker first establishing the very irregularity which the
information is sought to examine. Such a requirement would defeat the
purpose of seeking access to the relevant record. Where the information
sought directly relates to the assessment of candidates in a public
recruitment process, the requirement of transparency and accountability
assumes significance.
17. In the present case, the respondents have sought to justify the
denial of information only on the ground that the videography relates to
other applicants and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
However, the recording is not an unrelated personal document but forms part
of the record of the assessment conducted by a public authority for
recruitment to public posts. The mere fact that the recording also contains
the performance of other candidates would not, by itself, justify withholding
the entire information from an unsuccessful candidate who had participated
in the same recruitment process and seeks access to the record having a
direct bearing on the selection.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down
in the judgments noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the denial of the videography of the Band Skill Test cannot be sustained.
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M) - 11-
The impugned order, to the extent it declines disclosure of the said
information, therefore, warrants interference.
19. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-10), to the extent it denies disclosure of
the videography of the Band Skill Test, is set aside. The authorities are
directed to furnish the requisite information to the petitioner within a period
of 30 days from today.
20. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.

03.11.2026 (KIRTI SINGH)
SwarnjitS JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.11.05 17:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document