inkinccorporation@gmail.com Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Aamir Ali Sheikh vs Union Territory Of J&K Th on 11 February, 2026
Serial No. 115
Supp. Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 3172/2025
Aamir Ali Sheikh ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. Taha Khalil, Adv.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K Th. ...Respondent(s).
Comm/Secty (GAD) and Ors.
Through: Mr. Shah Aamir, Adv. with
Ms Afreen, Adv. for Rs. 2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
11.02.2026
1. Reply on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 stands
filed.
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he has
applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
pursuant to Notification No. 07-PSC (D-RP) of 2025
dated 14.05.2025 under EWS category and appeared in
the Preliminary Examination held on 28.09.2025. that
in order to ascertain the transparency and fairness in
the process of evaluation of the answer sheets, he
sought limited information concerning his own OMR-
based evaluation, including:
Number of questions attempted;
Correct and incorrect responses;
Marks obtained after negative marking;
Status of checking of his papers; andCut-off marks for EWS category.
That the Respondent No. 3 (Public Information
Officer) disposed of the RTI application on 19-10-2025
by a cryptic, one-line reply stating that, “the selection
process is not yet complete”. That his application was
addressed in a totally arbitrary and illegal manner
without passing any reasoned order and without
invoking any permissible exemption. That he was
constrained to prefer a statutory First Appeal under
Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, to demonstrate that the
denial of requisite information to him was arbitrary,
violative of settled law and contrary to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in CBSE vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497, which
recognized a candidate’s right to access his evaluated
answer sheets under RTI. That surprisingly the First
Appellate Authority failed to pass any order, thereby
frustrating his statutory remedy. That denial of access
to one’s own evaluation data strikes the very root of
transparency, fairness and accountability in public
recruitment. That he is a serious judicial services
aspirant and had earlier also applied for Kashmir Civil
Services (Judicial) Examination, 2023, in which he not
only qualified the written stages, but was also called for
and appeared in the interview, which reflects and
demonstrate his bona fides, merit and legitimateexpectation of a fair and transparent evaluation
process. That impugned action of the respondent
commission is ex facie arbitrary, violative of Article 14,
19(1)a and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides
being contrary to the scheme and object of the RTI Act,
thus, warranting interference by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The respondents 2 to 4 through the medium of their
preliminary objections have resisted the writ petition
on the following grounds;
1. “That the present writ petition is wholly misconceived,
premature and not maintainable, as this Hon’ble Court
lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of the
complete, efficacious and statutorily prescribed remedy
available to the petitioner under the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
2. That it is a settled principle of law that where a statute
provides complete machinery for redressal of grievances,
recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is impermissible, except in exceptional
circumstances.
3. That the RTI Act, 2005 being a self-contained and
exhaustive code, provides for a two-tier appellate
mechanism under Section 19(1) and 19(3), which the
petitioner is bound to exhaust before invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
4. That admittedly, the petitioner has already availed the
remedy of First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act
and has a further efficacious remedy of Second Appeal
under Section 19(3) before the competent Information
Commission. Without exhausting the said statutory remedy
of Second Appeal, the present writ petition is premature
and not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone.
5. That the petitioner has wrongly invoked Articles 14,
19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, though no
fundamental right has been violated.
6. That it is submitted that mere delay or deferment of
information under the RTI Act does not per se amount to
violation of fundamental rights, particularly.
7. That in the absence of any pleading or proof of
arbitrariness, discrimination or deprivation of life or
personal liberty, the invocation of Articles 14 and 21 is
wholly misconceived.
8. That the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, namely,
quashing of the RTI reply, direction to disclose information
and direction to decide the First Appeal, fall squarely
within the statutory jurisdiction of authorities constituted
under the RTI Act, and not within the writ jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court in the first instance. Where a statutory
forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
bypassing such forum is not maintainable.
9. That the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
disclosure of information would amount to circumventing
the statutory appellate hierarchy, which is impermissible in
law.
10. That during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has already been called upon by the
respondents to appear before the First Appellate Authority
on 30-12-2025 for disposal of the First Appeal. Once the
competent statutory authority has seized of the matter and
a date of hearing has been duly fixed, the statutory
process stands set in motion and is actively underway. In
such a situation, the grievance regarding non-disposal of
the appeal ceases to exist, as the very object sought to be
achieved through a writ of mandamus-namely,
consideration and adjudication of the appeal-is already
being fulfilled.
11. That it is a settled principle of public law that a writ
of mandamus lies only where there is a clear failure to
perform a statutory duty. Once the appellate authority has
fixed a hearing and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal,
there can be no allegation of inaction, abdication of duty, or
refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
12. That the petitioner, having prayed for the writ of
mandamus for disposal of the appeal thus become
infructuous, academic, and devoid of any surviving cause
of action, and therefore does not warrant consideration by
this Hon’ble Court.
13. That mere dis-satisfaction with the pace or outcome
of the statutory process does not confer a right to invoke
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. That the present writ petition, which seeks to bypass
the statutory appellate mechanism under the RTI Act, is not
maintainable and deserves dismissal in limine with costs”.
4. Through the medium of the petition in hand, the
petitioner has sought the issuance of writs in the
nature of certiorari and mandamus for quashing the
impugned reply dated 19.10.2025 issued by the
Respondent No. 3 (Public Information Officer) under
RTI Act, and for directing the respondents to provide
complete information sought by the petitioner in his
RTI Application No. JKPSC/R/2025/60558, including:
i. Number of questions attempted;
ii. Correct and incorrect responses;
iii. Marks after negative marking;
iv. Status of evaluation; and
v. Cut-off marks for EWS category, after disposal of his
First Appeal to that effect.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
especially having regard to the pleadings of the parties,
this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of
justice, in case the instant petition is disposed of with
the direction to the respondents especially the
Respondent No. 4 to address the First Appeal of the
petitioner already filed by him in terms of Provisions of
Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, strictly in accordance with
the law and in an expeditious manner within a period
of one week.
6. It is accordingly directed.
7. Disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
11.02.2026
“Sakeena-PS”
