Evaluated answer scripts of unsuccessful candidates must be disclosed under RTI before selection process completion.

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 skill-based tests (typing 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 results published on 03.02.2026

Footnote No. 4 of the results notification barred candidates from inspecting their shorthand notebooks or answer sheets until the entire selection process was completed and discouraged RTI applications

The petitioners challenged this restriction and sought to strike down Rules 45 and 71(7) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013, which restricted inspection

The Court primarily relied on Section 22 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which provides that the Act has an overriding effect over any inconsistent colonial or state laws

It applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 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)

The Court distinguished Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011), noting that while intellectual property (question papers/model answers) can be protected during an exam, an individual's own evaluated answer sheet does not fall under such exemption

The Court reasoned that since the shorthand examination was a qualifying stage, candidates declared unsuccessful are effectively eliminated from the recruitment process

Delaying inspection until the final results—at which point the second stage would be over and appointments likely made—would render any discovered evaluation errors "practically irreversible"

The Court found that the Commission failed to demonstrate how disclosing a candidate’s own answer script to them would harm the competitive position of third parties or fall under the fiduciary exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act

Regarding the 2013 Rules, the Court held that Rule 45 only regulates the publication of marks and doesn't prohibit inspection

Rule 71(7), if interpreted to block access during an ongoing process, would be inconsistent with Section 22 of the RTI Act; therefore, it must be "read down"

It held that candidates eliminated at an initial stage cannot be denied the right to verify their performance

Rule 71(7) of the 2013 Rules was read down to ensure it does not deny inspection to eliminated candidates

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

No order as to costs was made