Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:8319)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3672 of 2008
----
Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, through its Public Information Officer, Sri Sanjeet Samrendra Lakra, son of Sri Lal Mani Lakra, resident of Road No.1, Kumhar Toli, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jharkhand State Information Commission through its under Secretary, Engineering Hostel No.1, H.E.C. Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. Anjani Kumar Choudhary, Advocate, S/o not known to the petitioner, resident of 4C, Gayatri Apartment, Tagor Hill Road, Morabadi, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi. .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. S. Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Res. No.2 :- Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the Res. No.3 :- Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
----
18/24.03.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel of the respondent No.2 as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. This application has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.6.2008 passed in Appeal No. 287 of 2008 by the learned Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, as contained in Annexure-9, whereby the learned Chief Information Commissioner has been pleased to direct the petitioner to provide the informations to 1 the respondent no.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi is a constitutional body created under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. He next submits that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi after receiving requisition from the Ranchi University, Ranchi, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and S.K.M. University, Dumka, started selection process for the appointment of Lecturers and accordingly Advertisement No. 1/07 was issued, by which, applications were invited from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturers. After following the procedure and the interview of Lecturers, the J.P.S.C. recommended the names of the successful candidates on 14.1.2008 for appointment on the post of Lecturers on the basis of assessment made by the High Power Interview Board and on the basis of the educational qualifications. He next submits that the said recommendation made by the J.P.S.C. for appointment of Lecturers in different Universities was challenged before this Hon'ble Court by Jharkhand Ph.D. Dharak Sodh Sangh and another, in W. P. (C) No. 270/2008, which was heard on 23.01.2008 and interim order of stay was passed by the High Court, which was subsequently vacated by the order dated 27.02.2008.
4. He next submits that the respondent no.3 filed application before the Public Information Officer, J.P.S.C. on 17.1.2008, by which, he sought eight informations relating to appointment of Lecturers alongwith proceedings of J.P.S.C. in which decisions have been taken 2 for making recommendation for appointment of lecturers, as well as, signed copy of marks-sheet, signed by Members of the High Power Interview Board who conducted the interview and awarded the marks individually. In light of the pendency of the writ petition the respondent no.3 was informed by the J.P.S.C. that the said information cannot be provided. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 filed First Appeal before the First Appellate authority on 25.02.2008 and filed Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, which was registered as Appeal No.287 of 2008 and in second appeal summon was issued to the petitioner for its appearance, in which the petitioner appeared and filed the objection pointing out that the information no.1 to 3 was provided to the respondent no.3.
5. He further submits that learned Information Commission has heard the matter on 10.06.2008 and adjourned the same on 23.06.2008 for furnishing the information. He next submits that on 23.01.2008, the Public Information Officer has filed its written statement pointing out that the information sought with regard to the recommendation of candidates for appointment on the post of Lecturers in different universities of this State as well as marks awarded by each members of High Power Interview Board cannot be provided in view of the confidentiality of the selection process and public interest does not demand disclosure of methods used by the Public Service Commission and same is protected from disclosure.
6. He also submits that the learned Information Commission has further adjourned the matter for 26.06.2008 as such, the further petition has been filed informing about the order of the High Court 3 and the stay. He submits by the impugned order dated 26.06.2008, the learned Chief Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to furnish the information no.4 to 8 to the respondent no.3. He next submits that so far information no.1 to 3 are concerned that has already been provided to the respondent no.3. He submits that the so far, the information no.4 to 8 are concerned that relates to other persons and in the light of Section 8(1)(e) and (g) of the Right Information Act, it has not been provided. He also submits that in this background the impugned order has been wrongly passed by the learned Information Commission. He next submits that the said examination was the subject matter of investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the investigation has been made by the C.B.I. and now the chargesheet has been submitted against the erring persons.
7. He relied in the case of Union Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. reported in 2018(4) SCC 530, and refers to paras-9,10 and 11, which reads as under:-
"9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters.4
10. In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on the above parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.
11. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Civil Appeal No. 5924 of 2013."
8. Relying the above judgment, he submits that parameters of providing information have been considered therein, if he emphasized that exemptions as provided under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the Act reinforced the imperative to protect the integrity and confidentiality of examination process, against indiscriminate information disclosure. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- Information Commission submits that the said commission is having the power and found that information was necessary in view of that has passed the said order, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 submits that the only information no.1 to 3 have been provided, however, information no.4 to 8 have not been provided in view of that the Information Commission has rightly passed the order.
11. In the aforesaid background, it transpires that the said examination was the subject matter of the investigation by none other than Central Bureau of Investigation. In view of the chargesheet filed by C.B.I., the materials are in the public domain now.
12. It is an admitted position so far as the Information no.4 to 8 are concerned these were not related to the respondent no.3 that are related to 3rd party information or lack the vitality of being seen upon 5 the public interest.
13. Under the Right to Information Act, the information can be provided except that information which needed to be protected for maintaining the confidentiality of the recruitment process by the Public Service Commission. In this background, if the 3rd party information as requested by the respondent no.3 was not provided, action of the J.P.S.C. is not vitiated.
14. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (Supra), and further considering that 3rd party information was sought by the respondent no.3, the Information Commission in that view of the matter was not justified to direct the J.P.S.C. to provide the such information. Further, in light of the chargesheet filed by the C.B.I., the materials are now within the public Domain.
15. In view of the above facts, reason and analysis the impugned order dated 26.06.2008 passed in Appeal No.287 of 2008 is hereby quashed.
16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 24.03.26 Jay/ 6