Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ravindra Sharma vs Registrar General Cum App Ors on 13 May, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: ORDER :: D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1510/2013 Ravindra Sharma Vs. Registrar General Cum Appellate Authority, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order : 13th May, 2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rachit Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Heard Mr.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rachit Sharma for the respondents.
The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is an advocate practicing at Jaipur. He had earlier appeared in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission wherein he had qualified in the written examinations, but remained unsuccessful in the interview. He thereafter appeared in the written examination held for direct recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge on 30.6.2010 by the respondent No.1 and being successful was called for the interview. However, the said process was cancelled. Subsequent thereto, by a notification dated 19.7.2011, a fresh process was initiated for appointment by direct recruitment to 39 vacant posts in the Cadre of District Judge. He, having offered his candidature, was allowed to appear in the written examination, and his allotted roll number was 3430. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written examination held on 5.5.2012 and 6.5.2012 and the results thereof were declared on 6.8.2012. He has averred that in aggregate though he had scored 149 marks, he could not secure the minimum pass marks in the Language Paper, and therefore, he was not declared successful in the written examination. Situated thus, he submitted application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2005'), seeking the following relief:-
1. I want to inspect the evaluated answer book of paper 3rd Language of the examination for recruitment to the District Judge Cadre year 2011.
2. I want to take certified copy of the aforesaid evaluated answer Book (Paper 3rd Language of the examination for recruitment to the District Judge Cadre year 2011) The request was declined by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) -cum- State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur with the observation that the information sought for can be provided after the conclusion of the entire process of examination i.e. Interview and declaration of the final results. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur -cum- Appellate Authority, which was also rejected on the ground that the process of recruitment had not been concluded.
The respondents, in their reply, while refuting the contention that the petitioner's request for inspection of his answer-book and the certified copy thereof had been illegally rejected, also asserted that his perception that he had performed better in Language Paper is misplaced. According to the answering respondents, the ground to decline the petitioner's request sought for under the Act 2005 was valid.
Mr.Prasad has insistently argued that the written examination being over as the results thereof had been declared, the reasons cited for not acceding to the request of the petitioner is patently illegal. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-authorities under the Act 2005 had, in rejecting the petitioner's request, misread the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497.
Learned senior counsel for the respondents, to reinforce his arguments, while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H.Satya & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 781, has urged that having regard to the grounds taken, the rejection of the petitioner's prayer was on a correct interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.(supra) and for the sake of inviolable confidentiality of the exercise underway.
We have considered the pleadings with the supporting documents as well as the arguments made.
That the scheme of the competitive examination has, in its fold, the written examination and interview as inherent constituents thereof, is apparent on the face of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as '2010 Rules/Rules'). The petitioner admittedly could not secure the minimum pass marks in the Language Paper. He has, therefore, been declared unsuccessful in the written examination and per se is not entitled to be called for the interview. His contention is that on the basis of his past performances and also the marks secured by him in Paper Law-I and Paper Law-II, he expectedly ought to have passed the Language Paper as well. His request for inspecting his evaluated answer-book of the Language Paper and certified copy thereof, is based on that perception.
Be that as it may, as admittedly the selection process is not yet complete and the interview of the shortlisted candidates is to be held, in our opinion, the reasons cited by the respondent-authorities in declining to accede to the request made by the petitioner cannot be repudiated to be illegal, illogical or absurd. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.(supra) had observed that safeguards inbuilt in the Act 2005 ensure that revelation of information thereunder should not be in conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the Government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidential and sensitive information. Their Lordships in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H.Satya & Ors.(supra) had held that informations relating to intellectual property, question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions, in regard to any particular examination cannot be disclosed before examination is held as it would harm competitive position of innumerable third parties taking the same. That the examining body is not liable to give any citizen any such information relating to questions papers, solutions/model answers and instructions relating to any particular examination before the date thereof, was clearly underlined. This pronounced legal proposition in the context of the scheme of the Act 2005 would, in our comprehension, amply signify that considering the nature of the selection process underway and the bearing of the results of the written examination on the eventual selection of the candidates, acceding to the request of the petitioner at this stage, would undermine the confidentiality thereof, apart from affecting the third party rights. The ground(s) cited by the respondent-authorities vis-a-vis the request of the petitioner, in our view, therefore, are in conformity with the enunciations recorded in the aforementioned decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not warrant any interference.
The petition lacks in merit and is rejected.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, P