Uttarakhand High Court
Rajveer Singh And Others …… … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 10 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1517-DB
Reserved Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Reserved on : 25.02.2026
Delivered on : 10.03.2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 62 OF 2026
Rajveer Singh and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 66 OF 2026
Ranveer Singh Tomar and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 82 OF 2026
Ruchi Rana and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt,
learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Sachin
1
2026:UHC:1517-DB
Mohan Singh Mehta, learned Brief
Holder for the State
: Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. B.D.
Kandpal, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta)
1) The petitioners have approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging
the result of the shorthand examination declared on
03.02.2026 pursuant to advertisement dated 18.07.2024
issued for recruitment to the post of Additional Personal
Secretary in the Government Secretariat, Dehradun and in
the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar.
The petitioners have further prayed for quashing Footnote
No. 4 to the result dated 03.02.2026 and for striking down
Rule 45 and 71(7) of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules,
2013 insofar as the same restricts inspection of answer
sheets until completion of the entire selection process.
2) As common questions of facts and law are
involved in all the petitions, the same are being decided
by this common order.
2
2026:UHC:1517-DB
3) We have heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for
the petitioners; Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand; and Mr. Pankaj
Miglani, learned counsel appearing for the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission.
4) Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General
made a statement on 23.02.2026 that since vires of
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and
Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013 is under challenge and
the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is a separate
entity under the Constitution, therefore, the State has
nothing to say in respect of the Rules under challenge.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel appearing for the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has made
submissions in support of the Rules and has opposed the
prayers made in the writ petitions.
5) The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for
short ‘Commission’) issued an advertisement bearing No.
1/E-3/DR (APS)/2024 dated 18.07.2024 inviting
application for recruitment to the post of Additional
Personal Secretary in the Government Secretariat,
Dehradun and in the Uttarakhand Public Service
3
2026:UHC:1517-DB
Commission, Haridwar. As per the advertisement, 96
posts in the Government Secretariat and 03 posts in the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission were to the filled.
Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 12.08.2024 was
issued. The petitioners applied for the said posts and
were issued admit cards to participate in the recruitment
process. The selection process consisted of two stages.
The first stage comprised of skill based examinations in
Hindi typing, English typing, Computer knowledge test,
Hindi shorthand, and English shorthand as a preferential
qualification.
6) Only candidates qualifying the first stage were
eligible to participate in the second stage, which consisted
of written examinations in General Studies and Essay /
Drafting. The petitioners successfully cleared the typing
tests conducted between 25.11.2024 and 23.12.2024, the
results of which were declared on 16.01.2025. Thereafter
the petitioners qualified the computer knowledge
examination conducted between 27.01.2025 and
13.02.2025, the result of which was declared on
02.08.2025. Having qualified the aforesaid examinations,
the petitioners appeared in the shorthand examination
conducted between 22.09.2025 and 16.10.2025. In the
shorthand test a passage was dictated to candidates
4
2026:UHC:1517-DB
which was required to be recorded in shorthand within five
minutes and thereafter transcribed through computer
typing within thirty-five minutes.
7) The petitioners assert that they possess
substantial experience and proficiency in shorthand and
typing and had prepared extensively for the recruitment
examination. According to them, they had successfully
cleared the earlier stages of the selection process, namely
the Hindi typing test, English typing test and computer
knowledge examination, and therefore had every
expectation of qualifying the shorthand examination as
well.
8) It is stated that during the shorthand
examination the dictated passage was recorded by the
petitioners in shorthand without difficulty and the
subsequent transcription through computer typing was
completed well within the prescribed time. According to
the petitioners, most candidates in the examination hall
were able to complete the transcription within 15 to 20
minutes, whereas the time allowed for the transcription
was substantially longer. The remaining time, according
to the petitioners, was utilised by them to recheck the
typed material.
5
2026:UHC:1517-DB
9) The petitioners therefore assert that they were
satisfied with their performance in the shorthand
examination and were confident of qualifying the said test.
However, when the result was declared on 03.02.2026,
the petitioners were surprised to find that their roll
numbers were not included in the list of successful
candidates.
10) The petitioners state that in view of their
performance in the examination, the result gave rise to a
reasonable apprehension that either the shorthand
notebooks or the typed answer sheets of the petitioners
had not been property evaluated or that some error had
occurred during the evaluation process.
11) The petitioners sought inspection of their
shorthand notebooks and answer sheets but were denied
such inspection on the basis of Footnote No. 4 to the
notice of declaration of result dated 03.02.2026, which
provides as follows :
“With regard to the answer books relating to
the shorthand examination of the candidates,
inspection shall be permitted only after the
declaration of the final result. Therefore
candidates are requested not to submit
applications under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 seeking such information.”
6
2026:UHC:1517-DB
It is this restriction that is primarily under
challenge.
12) According to the petitioners, unless they are
permitted to inspect their shorthand notebooks and typed
answer sheets, it would not be possible for them to
ascertain whether the evaluation has been carried out
correctly. The petitioners contend that refusal on part of
the respondents to permit inspection of answer sheets, on
the strength of Footnote No. 4 to the notice of declaration
of result dated 03.02.2026, effectively deprives them of
an opportunity to verify the correctness of the evaluation
and to seek timely redressal of any error that may have
occurred.
13) It is also contended that the restriction imposed
through the said clause amounts to an unjustified
curtailment of the rights available to the petitioners under
the Right to Information Act, 2005, which confers a
statutory right upon citizens to obtain information from
public authorities.
14) The petitioners further submit that postponing
the inspection of answer sheets until completion of the
entire selection process would cause serious prejudice to
7
2026:UHC:1517-DB
them. By the time the final result of the recruitment
process is declared, the second stage examination would
have been conducted and the selection process would
have substantially progressed. In such circumstances,
even if it is later discovered that the petitioners had been
wrongly declared unsuccessful due to an error in
evaluation, the petitioners would already have been
excluded from further participation in the selection
process and the prejudice caused to them would become
practically irreversible.
15) The petitioners therefore contend that
transparency in the evaluation process is essential to
maintain fairness in public recruitment and that denial of
inspection of answer sheets, particularly to candidates
who have already been declared unsuccessful, cannot be
justified on the ground that the recruitment process is still
continuing.
16) According to the respondents the recruitment
process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the
advertisement and the applicable rules governing the
conduct of examinations by the Commission. It is stated
that the shorthand examination was conducted in a fair
and transparent manner and the answer sheets of the
8
2026:UHC:1517-DB
candidates were evaluated by duly appointed examiners in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. The
respondents deny that there has been any irregularity in
the evaluation of shorthand notebooks or typed answer
sheets of the petitioners.
17) It is further stated that the petitioners were
declared unsuccessful on the basis of their performance in
the shorthand examination and no error has occurred in
the evaluation process.
18) The respondents have further justified their
refusal to permit inspection of answer sheets by relying
upon Footnote No. 4 to the notice dated 03.02.2026.
According to the respondents, the said restriction has
been imposed in order to ensure the smooth and orderly
conduct of the recruitment process and to prevent
unnecessary interference during the pendency of the
selection process.
19) The respondents have also relied upon the
provisions of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission
(Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013,
particularly Rule 45 and Rule 71(7).
9
2026:UHC:1517-DB
20) In support of their contention, the respondents
have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs
Shaunak H. Satya 1 and the Rajasthan High Court in
Ravindra Sharma Vs Registrar General, Rajasthan High
Court 2. The respondents therefore contend that the
embargo imposed through Note 4 to the notice dated
03.02.2026 is reasonable and is intended to protect the
integrity of the ongoing recruitment process.
21) Recruitment to public posts must conform to the
constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality
embodied in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
22) In the present recruitment scheme the
shorthand examination constitutes a decisive stage of the
recruitment process. Once a candidate is declared
unsuccessful at this stage, he stands eliminated from the
recruitment process. The law regarding access to answer
sheets has been settled by the Supreme Court in CBSE Vs
Aditya Bandopadhyay 3, wherein it was held that an
evaluated answer script constitutes information accessible
to the examinee. Similarly, in Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India Vs Shaunak H. Satya (supra), the
1
(2011) 8 SCC 781
2
(2013) 3 WLN 486
3
(2011) 8 SCC 497
10
2026:UHC:1517-DB
Supreme Court reiterated the importance of transparency
in evaluation. These principles are also consistent with
the object of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which
seeks to promote transparency in the functioning of public
authorities. Even the respondents do not dispute these
legal propositions. Their only case is that the answer
sheets would be supplied after the recruitment is over,
otherwise it would affect third parties and delay the
conclusion of the recruitment process.
23) Footnote No. 4 to the notice dated 03.02.2026
provides that inspection of answer sheets shall be
permitted only after declaration of the final result.
24) The effect of this stipulation is that candidates
who have already been declared unsuccessful cannot
verify at this stage whether their answer sheets were
properly evaluated. By the time the final result is
declared, the second stage examination would already
have been conducted and appointments may have been
made. In such circumstances any error in evaluation
would become practically incapable of correction.
11
2026:UHC:1517-DB
25) Rule 45 of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules,
2013 provides :
“The marks of all the candidates (after
final results are declared) shall be
displayed on the Commission’s website.”
This provision merely regulates publication of marks
after declaration of the final results. It does not create
any prohibition against permitting inspection of answer
sheets of candidates who have already been eliminated
from the selection process. Therefore Rule 45 cannot be
invoked to justify denial of inspection in the present case.
26) Similarly, reliance has been placed upon Rule
71(7) which provides :
“After the selection process of an
examination is over, if a candidate under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 demands
photocopies of his / her answer books / OMR
answer sheets or wants to see them, the
procedure framed by the Commission for this
purpose will be followed.”
The purpose of this rule is to regulate the
procedure for supply of answer sheets after completion of
the selection process. However, the rule cannot be
interpreted in a manner that defeats the statutory right of
a candidate to obtain access to his own answer sheet.
12
2026:UHC:1517-DB
27) The legal position in this regard stands
authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in CBSE Vs
Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra). In the said judgment, the
Supreme Court held that evaluated answer scripts
constitute “information” under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 and that an examinee has the right to inspect or
obtain certified copies thereof. The Supreme Court
observed:
“The RTI Act enables students to have access
to the answer-books as ‘information’ and inspect
them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22
of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the
said Act will have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law
for the time being in force. Therefore the
provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the
provisions of the bye-laws or rules of the examining
bodies in regard to examinations.”
The Court further held:
“Unless the examining body is able to
demonstrate that the answer-books fall under any of
the exempted categories of information described in
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining body will
be bound to provide access to an examinee to
inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer
books, even if such inspection is barred under the
rules or bye-laws governing the examinations.”
The Supreme Court also clarified that the exemption
contained in Section 8(1)(e) relating to fiduciary
relationships does not ordinarily apply to evaluated
answer scripts.
13
2026:UHC:1517-DB
28) The principle emerging from the aforesaid
judgment is that statutory rules or examination bye-laws
cannot override the rights conferred by the RTI Act,
particularly in view of Section 22 of the RTI Act, which
provides that the Act shall have overriding effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any
other law.
29) Under the present recruitment scheme, the first
stage examination was of a qualifying nature only. Its
purpose is to eliminate those who fail to achieve a
prescribed benchmark. Once the petitioners have already
been declared unsuccessful in the screening test
(shorthand examination), delaying access to them to their
answer sheets serves no legitimate purpose.
Fairness and transparency are integral
components of public recruitment. Denial of access to a
candidate’s own answer sheet after he has been declared
unsuccessful deprives him of the opportunity to verify the
correctness of the evaluation. Permitting inspection of
answer sheets of candidates already eliminated from the
recruitment process does not compromise the integrity of
the examination system. On the contrary, such
transparency strengthens public confidence in the
recruitment process. If after the conclusion of the
14
2026:UHC:1517-DB
recruitment it transpires that the petitioners were wrongly
excluded due to any error in evaluation, the prejudice
caused to the petitioners would become practically
irreversible. Third party interests would come into
existence and it would become extremely difficult both for
the Commission and this Court to remedy the situation.
Therefore, it would both be in the interest of the
petitioners and the successful candidates that the
petitioners are permitted to have access to the answer
sheets at this stage only. The Court is therefore of the
considered opinion that Rule 71(7) of the 2013 Rules must
be read down so as not to deny inspection of answer
sheets to candidates who stand eliminated from the
recruitment process at an earlier stage.
30) The respondents have placed reliance upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India Vs Shaunak H. Satya (supra),
particularly paragraphs 15 to 17 which read as follows:
“15. Information can be sought under the RTI Act
at different stages or different points of time. What
is exempted from disclosure at one point of time
may cease to be exempt at a later point of time,
depending upon the nature of exemption. For
example, any information which is exempted from
disclosure under Section 8 is liable to be disclosed if
the application is made in regard to the occurrence
or event which took place or happened twenty
years prior to the date of the request, vide Section
8(3) of the RTI Act. In other words, information
which was exempted from disclosure, if an15
2026:UHC:1517-DB
application is made within twenty years of the
occurrence, may not be exempted if the application
is made after twenty years.
16. Similarly, if information relating to the
intellectual property, that is, the question papers,
solutions/model answers and instruction in regard
to any particular examination conducted by the
appellant cannot be disclosed before the
examination is held, as it would harm the
competitive position of innumerable third parties
who are taking the said examination. Therefore it
is obvious that the appellant examining body is not
liable to give to any citizen any information relating
to question papers, solutions/model answers and
instructions relating to particular examination
before the date of such examination. But the
position will be different once the examination is
held. Disclosure of the question papers, model
answers and instructions in regard to any particular
examination would not harm the competitive
position of any third party once the examination is
held.
17. In fact, the question papers are disclosed to
everyone at the time of examination. The appellant
voluntarily publishes the ‘suggested answers’ in
regard to the question papers in the form of a book
for sale every year after the examination.
Therefore Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act does not
bar or prohibit the disclosure of question papers,
model answers (solutions to questions) and
instructions, if any, given to the examiners and
moderators after the examination and after
evaluation of answer scripts is completed, as at that
stage they will not harm the competitive position of
any third party. We therefore reject the contention
of the appellant that if an information is exempt at
any given point of time, it continues to be exempt
for all times to come.”
31) A careful reading of the aforesaid paragraphs
shows that the Supreme Court was dealing with question
papers, model answers, solutions and instructions issued to
examiners and moderators. The Court treated such material
as intellectual property of the examining body, the
16
2026:UHC:1517-DB
premature disclosure of which could harm the competitive
position of third parties taking the examination.
32) The present case stands on an entirely different
footing. The petitioners are not seeking disclosure of
question papers, model answers, solutions or instructions
issued to examiners. What the petitioners seek is only
inspection of their own shorthand notebooks and answer
sheets after they have been declared unsuccessful in the
shorthand examination. Such information cannot be
equated with confidential intellectual material belonging to
the examining body. Nor have the respondents
demonstrated how permitting the petitioners to inspect their
own answer sheets would prejudice the competitive position
of any third party. Therefore, the reliance placed by the
respondents upon Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India Vs Shaunak H. Satya (supra) is misplaced.
33) The respondents have also relied upon the
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Ravindra Sharma
Vs Ragistrar General-cum-Appellate Authority, Rajasthan
High Court & others (supra), where a request made under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 for inspection and
certified copies of an evaluated answer book was declined
on the ground that the recruitment process had not yet
concluded. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the
17
2026:UHC:1517-DB
Rajasthan High Court placed reliance upon the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India Vs Shaunak H. Satya (supra) and CBSE Vs Aditya
Bandopadhyay (supra), and upheld the rejection of the
request on the premise that the selection process was still in
progress. However, the reasoning adopted in the said
judgment does not elaborate as to how the principle laid
down in the said judgments would apply to the facts before
that Court.
34) As noticed earlier, in Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India Vs Shaunak H. Satya (supra), the
Supreme Court was dealing with disclosure of question
papers, model answers, solutions and instructions issued to
examiners, which were treated as intellectual property of the
examining body and whose disclosure could affect the
competitive position of third parties appearing in the
examination. It was in that context that the Court
recognised that disclosure of such material could be deferred
at certain stages. The Rajasthan High Court judgment,
while referring to the aforesaid decision, does not undertake
any analysis as to whether the evaluated answer book of a
candidate falls within the same category of confidential
intellectual material or how its disclosure would prejudice
the competitive position of other candidates. Nor does the
18
2026:UHC:1517-DB
judgment explain in what manner inspection of an
examinee’s own answer book would be contrary to public
interest or would compromise the confidentiality of the
examination system.
35) The reasoning of the Supreme Court in CBSE Vs
Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) makes a clear distinction
between confidential evaluation material such as model
answers or examiner instructions, on the one hand, and the
evaluated answer script of the examinee himself, on the
other. The latter was held to constitute “information”
accessible to the examinee under the RTI Act unless it falls
within one of the specific statutory exemptions.
36) In the absence of any analysis demonstrating that
disclosure of an examinee’s answer book would attract any
of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act or
would otherwise harm the competitive position of third
parties, the mere pendency of a recruitment process cannot
by itself justify denial of access.
37) Therefore, the reliance placed by the respondents
upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Ravindra
Sharma Vs Registrar General (supra) does not advance
their case. The said judgment does not lay down a binding
principle that inspection of answer books must invariably be
19
2026:UHC:1517-DB
denied until completion of the entire selection process; nor
does it examine the issue in the light of the distinction
drawn by the Supreme Court between confidential
evaluation material and an examinee’s own answer script.
Consequently, the respondents cannot derive support from
the said judgment to sustain the embargo contained in
Footnote No. 4 to the notice dated 03.02.2026.
38) The respondents have further placed reliance
upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.
1555 of 2025, wherein a writ petition seeking disclosure of
marks during the pendency of the selection process was
dismissed. A careful reading of the said judgment shows
that the issues involved therein were different from those
arising in the present case.
39(A) Firstly, in that case the petitioner had sought
disclosure of marks under the Right to Information Act,
2005 during the pendency of the recruitment process. The
request was declined by the Commission and the petitioner
approached the Court. However, as recorded by the Court
itself in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the petitioner had not
challenged the communication by which his request for
disclosure of marks was rejected. The Court therefore
proceeded on the limited question whether disclosure of
marks during the subsistence of the selection process was
20
2026:UHC:1517-DB
warranted. In the present case, however, the petitioners
have specifically challenged the decision embodied in
Footnote No. 4 to the notice dated 03.02.2026, which
categorically prohibits inspection of answer books until the
completion of the entire selection process.
39(B) Secondly, in the case relied upon by the
respondents, no challenge was laid to any statutory
provision or rule governing the recruitment process. The
Court merely referred to Rules 45 and 71(7) of the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and
Conduct of Business) Rules, 2013, as relied upon by the
Commission, but the validity or interpretation of those
provisions was not in issue.
39(C) The present case raises a broader issue, namely,
the legality of a blanket prohibition on inspection of answer
books imposed through Footnote No. 4 to the notice dated
03.02.2026 and its compatibility with the principles
governing access to evaluated answer script. For these
reasons, the judgment relied upon by the respondents
cannot govern the present controversy and is clearly
distinguishable.
40) For the reasons stated above, this Court holds
that the restriction imposed through Footnote No. 4 to the
21
2026:UHC:1517-DB
notice dated 03.02.2026 cannot be sustained insofar as it
denies inspection of answer sheets to candidates already
declared unsuccessful.
41) All the writ petitions are allowed with the following
directions:
(a) Footnote No. 4 to the notice dated 03.02.2026 is
quashed to the extent it denies inspection of answer
sheets of candidates declared unsuccessful in the
shorthand examination.
(b) Rule 71(7) of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business)
Rules, 2013 is read down to permit inspection of
answer sheets of candidates who have been
eliminated from the recruitment process in the
initial stage.
(c) The petitioners shall be permitted to inspect and
obtain copies of their shorthand notebooks and
answer sheets.
42) All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
43) No order as to costs.
_____________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 10th MARCH, 2026
Negi
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI
HIMANS
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a
af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5HU NEGI
757, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC
51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C
18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.03.10 16:27:31 +05’30’
22
