Evaluated answer scripts are information under RTI Act; inspection cannot be denied to candidates already eliminated.

The petitioners applied for the post of Additional Personal Secretary pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.07.2024.

The selection process involved two stages: the first stage consisted of qualifying skill tests (typing, computer knowledge, and shorthand), and the second stage involved written examinations in General Studies and Essay/Drafting.

The petitioners cleared the typing and computer tests but were declared unsuccessful in the shorthand examination result dated 03.02.2026.

They sought inspection of their shorthand notebooks and answer sheets to verify the evaluation, but were denied based on Footnote No. 4 of the results and Rules 45 and 71(7) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013, which restrict inspection until the entire selection process is complete.

The petitioners challenged these restrictions under Article 226, arguing they would suffer irreversible prejudice if errors were discovered only after the final results.

The court primarily applied the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically Section 22, which grants the Act overriding effect over inconsistent rules or laws.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497, which established that evaluated answer scripts constitute "information" and that an examinee has a right to inspect them unless falling under specific exemptions in Section 8(1).

The court also distinguished Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781, noting that while intellectual property like model answers may be protected, an individual's own answer script is not exempt.

The Court reasoned that since the shorthand examination was a "decisive stage" of elimination, denying unsuccessful candidates the right to verify evaluation until the end of the entire process—which includes a second stage they are already barred from—renders any potential corrective relief "practically irreversible".

The Court found that Rule 45 only pertains to the publication of marks, not inspection.

Regarding Rule 71(7), the Court held it must be "read down" because statutory rules cannot override the RTI Act's mandate.

The Court clarified that the respondents failed to demonstrate how inspecting one's own shorthand notebook would attract exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act or harm the "competitive position" of others, as these scripts are not "intellectual property" of the Commission like model answer keys.

Transparency was deemed essential to maintain public confidence and ensure fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It held that the embargo on inspection during the pendency of the recruitment process is unsustainable for eliminated candidates.

The Court quashed Footnote No. 4 of the notice dated 03.02.2026 and read down Rule 71(7) of the 2013 Rules to permit inspection by candidates eliminated at initial stages.

The Commission was directed to permit the petitioners to inspect and obtain copies of their shorthand notebooks and answer sheets immediately.

No order as to costs was made.