Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Raj High Court Jodhpur on 21 August, 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.14050/2012 Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Date of Order : 21.08.2013 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.Saransh Saini for the petitioner. ***** BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Heard Mr.Saransh Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.
For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue formal notice.
The pleaded version of the petitioner, in short, is that in response to the advertisement for direct recruitment to the District Judge Cadre issued in the year 2011, the petitioner being eligible in terms thereof, offered his candidature whereafter, he was allowed to participate in the related written examination scheduled to be held on 25.2.2012 & 26.2.2012. The petitioner was issued the admit card and he duly took the said examination. The results were declared on 6.8.2012, which disclosed that he was unsuccessful, not having secured the minimum qualifying marks.
He was declared to have failed in the examination for not having been able to secure minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the relevant Rules. According to the petitioner, he has been grossly underevaluated as he had been awarded only 16 marks in Paper-III(Language), though he performed very well in the examination.
Thus, being aggrieved, the petitioner did submit an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur seeking a photo/certified copy of his answer booklet in English in the aforementioned examination, which according to him, remained unanswered, for which he approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide him therewith or to allow him to inspect the same, and further, in case the evaluation of his performance in the said Paper is found to be discriminatory or faulty to consider his candidature for recruitment in service.
The petitioner has referred to a number of candidates, who had secured lesser marks than him in Paper-I & Paper-II, but awarded higher marks in Paper-III, and has thus, on the basis thereof, alleged discriminatory and unfair treatment. He has asserted, for the same reason, that evaluation of his answer scripts had been faulty and erroneous.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above, has sought to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497.
We have duly considered the pleaded averments and the submissions in endorsement thereof.
In terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended upto 2012) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the process of recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, as involved herein, has two broad segments, namely, written examination followed by interview of the successful candidates. Both these processes of evaluation of the candidates constitute the selection process as a whole and cannot be segregated. The process of selection thus, gets completed only after the interview is conducted and the candidates are selected on the basis of their overall performance for recruitment.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (supra), had observed, in the context of the Right to Information Act, 2005, 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.
In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H.Satya & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Apex Court also, with reference to the said enactment, 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 the examination is held as it would harm competitive position of innumerable third parties taking the same. It was clearly underlined as well that the examining body is not liable to give any citizen any such information relating to any particular examination before the date thereof.
Apart from the fact that the perception of the petitioner that his performance had been undervalued has no tangible basis, he has not availed as well the alternative remedy of appeal prescribed by the Act, without mentioning any reason for not exhausting the same. We are thus, not inclined to issue any writ, order or direction, as prayed for.
This petition is thus disposed of with the observation that in case further steps are taken by the petitioner, as contemplated by the Act, the concerned authority would do the needful in accordance with the relevant provisions thereof.
(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, PA