Evaluated answer scripts are information under RTI Act; inspection cannot be denied until selection process completion.

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

After qualifying for typing and computer knowledge tests, they appeared for the shorthand examination held between September and October 2025

On 03.02.2026, the result was declared, and the petitioners were found unsuccessful

Footnote No. 4 of the result notification prohibited the inspection of shorthand answer books until the declaration of the final result and discouraged RTI applications

The petitioners challenged this restriction and the validity of Rules 45 and 71(7) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013, which restrict inspection until the completion of the entire selection process

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

It relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), establishing that evaluated answer scripts constitute "information" and students have a right to inspect them unless exempted under Section 8(1)

It distinguished ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011), noting that while intellectual property like question papers or model answers may be temporarily exempt to protect competitive positions, an individual's own answer script does not fall under such confidentiality once evaluated

The Court also referenced constitutional guarantees of fairness in public recruitment under Articles 14 and 16

The Court reasoned that once a candidate is eliminated at a qualifying stage, delaying inspection until the final result (which may take months) renders any remedy illusory, as the selection process would have progressed to an irreversible stage

The Court found that the Commission failed to demonstrate how disclosing an eliminated candidate's own answer sheet would harm the competitive position of third parties or fall under RTI exemptions

Regarding the 2013 Rules, the Court held that Rule 45 only concerns the publication of marks and does not bar inspection

Crucially, the Court determined that Rule 71(7) must be "read down" because statutory rules cannot override the RTI Act's mandate for transparency

The Court distinguished previous High Court orders by noting the petitioners here specifically challenged the validity of the restrictive footnote and rules, whereas prior cases dealt with mere disclosure of marks without such challenges

The Court: (a) Quashed Footnote No. 4 of the notice dated 03.02.2026 insofar as it denied inspection to unsuccessful candidates; (b) Read down Rule 71(7) of the 2013 Rules to permit inspection for candidates eliminated at initial stages; and (c) Directed the Commission to permit the petitioners to inspect and obtain copies of their shorthand notebooks and answer sheets

No order as to costs was made