Allahabad High Court
Suchit Bajpai And Another vs U.P. Public Service Commission And ... on 17 October, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16006 of 2019 Petitioner :- Suchit Bajpai And Another Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashpal Yadav, Lalji Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- M.N. Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners appeared in the main examination of U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2018. They have not been successful and have not been selected.
They have filed this petition seeking a direction that their answer books of the main examination be reevaluated and supplied to them.
The prayer of re-evaluation of the answer sheets cannot be accepted in the absence of any provision in this regard which leaves us with the issue of supply or inspection of answer books.
The petitioners in support of the above submission have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court dated 16th July, 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 Mradul Mishra Vs. Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad and Another. The aforesaid decision opines that permitting a candidate to inspect answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it even affect the efficient operation of the Government. The other issue such as that confidentiality of sensitive information have been dealt with in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others (2011) 8 SCC 497 and, therefore, the candidates are entitled to inspect the answer sheet subject to maintaining confidentiality of the examiner.
In the case of Union Public Service Commission and Others Vs. Angesh Kumar and Others (2018) 4 SCC 530, the Apex Court laid down that the marks of Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically but only where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court can certainly direct for giving the information so required.
The above decision is only with regard to furnishing of information and not with regard to showing or supplying the answer books to the candidate.
In the case of Mradul Mishra (supra), the Apex Court has ruled that the candidates are entitled to inspect the answer sheets.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioners are asking for inspecting the answer sheets of the main examination, we are of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to the same subject to maintaining of the confidentiality of the examiner. Accordingly a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to allow the petitioners to inspect the answer books on a given date which may be convenient to both the parties.
The writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019 S.Sharma