Manipur High Court
The Manipur Public Service Commission vs The Manipur Information Commission … on 21 July, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
2026:MNHC:136
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023
The Manipur Public Service Commission, represented by the
Secretary, North A.O.C, D.M. Road, Imphal - 795001.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The Manipur Information Commission represented by the Chief
Information Commissioner, Secretariat, Secretariat North
Block, Ground Floor behind Western Block, Imphal Manipur -
795001.
2. Kh. Robindro Singh aged about 41 years S/o Kh. Ibomcha
Singh r/o Ward No. 5, near Public School Ningthoukhong,
Manipur-795001.
........Respondent/s
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023
The Manipur Public Service Commission, represented by the
Secretary, North A.O.C, D.M. Road, Imphal – 795001.
…… Petitioner/s
– Versus –
1. The Manipur Information Commission represented by the Chief
Information Commissioner, Secretariat, Secretariat North
Block, Ground Floor behind Western Block, Imphal Manipur –
795001.
2. Begum Khaleda Bogie aged about 29 D/o Mohd. Ayub Khan
R/o Lilong Tamya Sumang, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Thoubal District,
Manipur – 795130. ……..Respondent/s
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 1
2026:MNHC:136
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023
The Manipur Public Service Commission, represented by the
Secretary, North A.O.C, D.M. Road, Imphal – 795001.
…… Petitioner/s
– Versus –
1. The Manipur Information Commission represented by the Chief
Information Commissioner, Secretariat, Secretariat North
Block, Ground Floor behind Western Block, Imphal Manipur –
795001.
2. Nawaj Sharif aged about 30 years S/o Md. Abdul Latif R/o
Lilong Haoreibi Lou Manga, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, Thoubal
District, Manipur – 795130.
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner :: Mr. M. Rarry, Sr. Adv.
Ms. M. Nikita, Adv.
For the respondents :: Mr. Mr. S. Rupachandra, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Royal Salam, Adv.;
Mr. K. Kishan, Adv. [for RTI applicants]
Mr. K. Roshan, Adv. [for Manipur
Information Commission]
Date of Hearing :: 15.04.2026
Date of Order :: 21.07.2026
JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
M. Nikita, learned counsel for the petitioner (MPSC); Mr. S. Rupachandra,
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Royal Ray Salam, learned counsel
for private respondents; Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for Manipur
Information Commission; and Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel for some of
the private respondents. Private respondents are RTI applicants.
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 2
2026:MNHC:136
[2] The present three writ petitions have been filed by Manipur
Public Service Commission (in short ‘MPSC’ hereinafter) against the
common judgment dated 28.04.2023 passed by Manipur Information
Commission (in short, ‘MIC’) in Appeal Case Nos. 16, 19 & 22 of 2023.
By the impugned order, Manipur Information Commission directed State
Public Information Officer (SPIO of MPSC) to allow three private
respondents herein (RTI applicants) to inspect and examine all their
respective evaluated answer sheets for Manipur Civil Service Combined
Competitive Examination [MCSCCE, 2016 (2022)].
[3] The brief facts of the present cases are that the respondents
herein, i.e., (1) Begum Khaleda Bogie had filed RTI application to SPIO of
MPSC for furnishing certified copy of her answer sheets for appearing in
MCSCCE, 2016 (2022) under roll No. 13344 for the subjects: Essay,
General Studies Paper-I, General Studies Paper-II, Education Paper-I,
Education Paper-II, Manipuri Literature paper-I and Manipuri Literature
Paper-II; (2) Kh. Robindro Singh also filed an RTI application for giving
photocopy of answer sheets for all papers (Main Examination), interview
marks, etc. for appearing in the same examination under roll No. 20691
for all subjects: Essay, General Studies Paper-I, General Studies Paper-
II, Education Paper-I, Education Paper-II, Public Administration Paper-I,
Public Administration Paper-II and Interview Marks; and (3) Nawaj Sharif
under roll No. 20529 also prayed for certified information regarding: (i)
total marks obtained by him in the examination; (ii) subject wise marks
obtained by him; (iii) cut off marks for General, SC, ST and OBC (both M
& MP) candidates; and (iii) certified copies of front pages of his evaluated
answer sheets containing ‘Instruction to Candidates’ of all subjects
(General English, Essay, General Studies Paper-I & II, Education Paper-
I & II, Computer Science Paper-I & II). With regard to three RTI
applications filed by the respondents herein, vide different letter dated
23.12.2022, SPIO of MPSC intimated all the three RTI applicants that
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 3
2026:MNHC:136
answer scripts for descriptive type paper under normal circumstances
cannot be given in terms of the policy decisions of the Commission.
However, with respect to RTI application of Nawaj Sharif, marks secured
by him in the examination as well as cut off marks for various categories
of candidates were furnished. But certified copy of front page of answer
sheets was not furnished due to policy decision of the Commission. Being
aggrieved by the same, RTI applicants filed first appeal before the
Commission. Appeal filed by Begum Khaleda Bogie was dismissed by the
first appellate authority of MPSC vide order dated 23.01.2023 on the
ground that the Commission has policy decision not to furnish answer
script under no circumstances and the said policy decision is being
challenged in the High Court and the same is pending. First appeal of Kh.
Robindro Singh was dismissed by the first appellate authority of MPSC
vide order dated 24.02.2023 on the same ground that the Commission
has policy decision not to furnish answer script of descriptive type of paper
to the candidate. The appeal filed by Nawaj Sharif was dismissed on
10.02.2023 on the ground that MPSC has policy decision not to furnish
evaluated answer script and the same is still in force and the subject
matter is sub-judiced before the High Court and hence, allowing the
candidate to peruse the evaluated answer scripts personally is not
feasible at this stage.
[4] Being aggrieved by the same, RTI applicants filed three
appeals, i.e., Appeal Case Nos. 16, 19 & 22 of 2023 before Manipur
Information Commission. During the course of hearing of the second
appeal before the State Information Commission, it is submitted on behalf
of RTI applicants that judgment cited by MPSC relating to UPSC has no
relationship as UPSC is a pan India Commission, whereas the jurisdiction
of MPSC is confined to jurisdiction of State of Manipur and any policy
decision with respect to UPSC cannot be, in toto, applicable to MPSC.
The RTI applicants, in view of the policy decision of MPSC not to furnish
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 4
2026:MNHC:136
certified copy of evaluated answer script to the candidate and also
pendency of the policy matter before the High Court of Manipur, make an
alternative prayer of allowing them to inspect evaluated answer scripts,
even though the policy decision deny them to collect certified copy of
answer script. MPSC opposed the alternative prayer made during the
course of hearing, as the same is not prayed for in the original RTI
applications. The substantive prayer in the original RTI applications is for
furnishing certified copy of evaluated mark sheets of the applicants. The
State Information Commission, considering the practice adopted by High
Court of Manipur in furnishing certified copy of evaluated answer sheets
in the examination of Manipur Judicial Services; in order to maintain
transparency involved in Civil Services Examination; past practice of
MPSC of providing of certified copy of answer scripts for recruitment of
Assistant Engineer in the year 2013; and considering pendency of the writ
petition challenging policy decision not to furnish answer script before the
High Court of Manipur, directed the SPIO of MPSC to allow the three RTI
applicants (private respondents herein) to inspect and examine all their
respective evaluated answer scripts for MCSCCE Main Examination,
2016 (2022) within four weeks from the date of the order. The MPSC is
aggrieved by this direction of State Information Commission allowing RTI
applicants to inspect their evaluated answer scripts for the said
examination. It may be relevant to reproduce three RTI applications:
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 5
2026:MNHC:136WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 6
2026:MNHC:136WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 7
2026:MNHC:136WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 8
2026:MNHC:136
[6] Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel on behalf of MPSC,
submits that the Full Commission in its Meeting held on 28.10.2020
agenda for considering furnishing evaluated answer books to the
candidate, the Commission after thoroughly considering the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service
Commission Etc. vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. etc. (Civil Appeal No.
6159-6162 of 2013): (2018) 4 SCC 530 and Prashant Ramesh
Chakkarwar vs. UPSC was of the view that disclosing answer books will
reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called ‘raw marks’ which
would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination
system. Accordingly, MPSC decided not to furnish evaluated answer
script for descriptive type of paper to candidate under normal
circumstances. Similar decision was taken by Full Commission in its
meeting held on 04.05.2020. The decision of the Full Commission
Meeting held on 28.10.2020 is reproduced as:
“Agenda No. 4: Applications received for furnishing
evaluated answer books to the
candidates.
Decision: Commission minutely discussed the matter and
considered the issues in providing evaluated
answer books to the candidates. In the case of
Civil Appeal No.(s) 6159-6162 of 2013, Union
Public Service Commission etc vs Angesh
Kumar & Ors with C.A. No. 5924/2013, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to the
problems enumerated in showing evaluated
answer sheets to candidates, in the counter
affidavit as recorded in Prashant Ramesh
Chakkarwar v. UPSC1 awards subsume earlier
stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books
would reveal intermediate stages too, including
the so-called ‘raw marks’ which would have
negative implications for the integrity of the
examination system”. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court was of the view that information sought
with regard to marks in Civil Services
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 9
2026:MNHC:136
Examination cannot be directed to be furnished
mechanically.
As the problems enumerated by UPSC in
providing evaluated answer books to candidate
is also similar for MPSC, Commission has
decided not to furnish evaluated answer books
for descriptive type papers to candidates under
normal circumstances.”
[7] It is submitted that one Yumlembam Surjit Singh has
challenged the policy decision of the Commission not to furnish evaluated
answer books to the candidate before this Court by way of writ petition
being WP(C) No. 312 of 2022 and the matter is sub-judiced at the moment
before a Division Bench of this Court. It is emphasized by Mr. M. Rarry,
learned sr. advocate that it will not be appropriate to entertain the same
issue raised by RTI applicants by this Court (Single Judge) in order to
maintain judicial discipline, judicial propriety and to avoid conflict of order,
as the policy decisions dated 28.04.2020 and 04.05.2020 debarring
furnishing certified copy of the evaluated answer scripts to the candidate,
when the same issue is pending before the Division Bench. Learned
senior counsel for MPSC has also heavily relied on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service
Commission etc. vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. etc. (Civil Appeal No.
6159-6162 of 2013: (2018) 4 SCC 530) and Prashant Ramesh
Chakkarwar vs. UPSC1: (2013) 12 SCC 489 which held that evaluated
answer scripts of competitive examination cannot be furnished to the
candidate, as the same would compromise the integrity of the
examination. It is also one of the grounds in the writ petitions that
recruitment examinations conducted by MPSC and UPSC stand on the
similar footing and the decision in the case of UPSC will be squarely
applicable to the examination conducted by MPSC. The State Information
Commission cannot unsettle the law already settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in regard to providing evaluated answer script of the
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 10
2026:MNHC:136
competitive examination to the candidate. The Information Commission
has also failed to appreciate Public Trust on MPSC will be adversely
affected by furnishing evaluated answer scripts to RTI applicants. It is
required to balance the problem caused by furnishing raw marks which
have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system and
which should ultimately be not in the public interest, as already held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that direction of the State
Information Commission allowing RTI applicants to peruse their evaluated
answer scripts for MCSCCE, 2016 (2022) is contrary to the policy
decision of MPSC and also against the law propounded by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court (supra). It is prayed that impugned order dated
28.04.2023 passed by State Information Commission may be set aside.
[8] Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel for MPSC, also relies
the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Arif Ahmed Choudhury
vs. Assam Public Service Commission rep. by its Chairman & Ors.:
2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1243 where Gauhati High Court upheld the
notification issued by Assam Public Service Commission debarring
furnishing of answer script to the candidate of competitive examination
conducted by the Commission relying on the decision of Angesh Kumar
(supra).
[9] Per contra, Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of RTI applicants in WP(C) Nos. 474 of 2023 and 475
of 2023, submits that original prayer in RTI applications is for furnishing
certified copy of evaluated answer scripts of RTI applicants. The RTI
applications were dismissed by SPIO of MPSC and the same was upheld
by first appellate authority of MPSC on the ground that policy decision of
MPSC cited (supra) barred furnishing of evaluated answer scripts of
descriptive type paper under normal circumstances and the same was
undertaken following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Angesh
Kumar Case (supra) and in order to preserve the integrity of the
examination. However, State Information Commission, taking into
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 11
2026:MNHC:136
consideration pendency of the writ petition challenging policy decision of
MPSC, past practice of MPSC of furnishing evaluated answer script for
recruitment of Assistant Engineer in the year 2013 and also relying on the
practice of High Court of Manipur furnishing certified copy of evaluated
answer script in the recruitment of Manipur Judicial Officers, moulded the
relief by allowing RTI applicants to peruse their evaluated answer scripts.
Learned senior counsel for RTI applicants highlighted that policy decision
bars furnishing of certified copy of evaluated answer script of descriptive
examination conducted by MPSC for various categories of examinations.
However, policy decision is silent on allowing the candidate perusing his
or her own evaluated answer script. Learned senior counsel further
highlighted that even if original RTI applications are for furnishing certified
copy of evaluated answer script, RTI applicants are satisfied with the relief
moulded by State Information Commission of allowing them to peruse
their own evaluated answer scripts for the said examination. In the
circumstances, RTI applicants did not challenge the decision of State
Information Commission allowing them to peruse evaluated answer
scripts. Learned senior counsel also refers to the decision of this Court in
the case of Manipur Public Service Commission vs. State Information
Commission and Anr. in WP(C) No. 833 of 2018 vide order dated
04.10.2018 where relying on the decision of Angesh Kumar Case
(supra) and various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Single
Bench of this Court directed MPSC to furnish copy of evaluated answer
script to the candidate. It is also submitted that MPSC cannot rely on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Angesh Kumar to deny
furnishing of evaluated answer sheets to the candidate, when the same
has been rejected by the Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated
04.10.2018. Learned senior counsel further urged that policy decision is
nothing but to undo the decision of this Court directing MPSC to furnish
answer sheets to the candidates and the decision was arrived by
considering the catena of decisions in the case of Angesh Kumar, as
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 12
2026:MNHC:136
conveniently cited by MPSC herein. It is submitted that MPSC never
challenged judgment and order dated 04.10.2018 and the same attains
finality.
[10] Learned senior counsel for RTI applicants refers to the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mradul Mishra vs.
Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad & Anr. (Civil
Appeal No. 6723 of 2018): (2018) SCC OnLine SC 3993 and order
dated16.07.2018 where a Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court after
relying the case of Angesh Kumar and Central Board of Secondary
Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.: (2011) 8 SCC 497
where it was directed the UP Public Service Commission to disclose the
marks of candidates and also held that candidates are entitled to inspect
the answer sheets. The relevant para is reproduced as:
“In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer
sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the
efficient operation of the Government. There are issues of
confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may
arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of
Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the
identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of
confidentiality.
That being the position, we have no doubt that the appellant
is entitled to inspect the answer sheets.
Accordingly, we direct the respondent – U.P. Public Service
Commission to fix the date, time and place where the appellant can
come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks.”
[11] Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel for some of the
RTI applicants, submits that the decision of Angesh Kumar (supra) is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. The issue of furnishing certified
copy of evaluated answer scripts to the candidate is challenged before a
Division Bench of this Court and the same is still pending for adjudication.
He further submits that even if the original prayer is for furnishing certified
copy of the evaluated answer script, State Information Commission
moulded the relief by allowing RTI applicants to inspect answer scripts
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 13
2026:MNHC:136
and RTI applicants are not aggrieved by direction of the Commission
altering the prayer of furnishing evaluated answer scripts to inspection of
answer scripts. The decision of State Information Commission allowing
RTI applicants to inspect evaluated answer script is squarely covered by
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mradul Mishra
(supra). Learned senior counsel further pointed out that while passing the
decision in Mradul Mishra case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refers to the
decision of Angesh Kumar which is heavily relied by Mr. M. Rarry,
learned senior counsel for MPSC. In other words, the case of Mradul
Mishra makes the decision of Angesh Kumar not applicable in the case
where relief granted is for inspection of evaluated answer script by the
candidate. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petitions filed by MPSC
challenging the direction of State Information Commission allowing RTI
applicants to inspect evaluated answer scripts, be dismissed on this
ground alone and being devoid of any merit.
[12] Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel for other RTI applicant,
adopts the submissions of Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel
for RTI applicants.
[13] Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for Manipur Information
Commission, submits that the issue raised by MPSC in these three writ
petitions had already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
various High Courts and by our own High Court in judgment and order
dated 04.10.2018 in WP(C) No. 833 of 2018 (supra). Furnishing of third
party information regarding marks of the selected candidates has been in
public domain and there is no question of being declared as confidential
and such information are not covered by Section 8 of RTI Act. The present
case is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission
Allahabad & Anr. (supra) where candidate is permitted to inspect answer
script as the same does not involve any public interest and does not affect
efficient operation of the Government. He also refers to the decision of
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 14
2026:MNHC:136
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Public Service
Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (Civil Appeal
No. 9052 of 2012): (2012) 11 S.C.R. 1032 where Hon’ble Supreme Court
allowed furnishing of collective marks given by the Commission but refrain
from disclosure of individual marks awarded by the Members of
Commission involved in the examination. Learned counsel also refers to
the decision of Karnataka Public Service Commission vs. Mr. Vinay
Kumar Ramaiah & Anr. in WP(C) No. 8676 of 2020 (GM-RES) order
dated 26.08.2020 where it was directed Karnataka Public Service
Commission to furnish copy of evaluated answer script for analysis,
submission and distinguished that Angesh Kumar‘s case was related to
provide third party information. It is submitted that writ petitions be
dismissed and finding of the Commission be upheld.
[14] This Court has perused the materials on record, submissions
of the parties and the decisions cited at the bar. The following points of
determination have been framed for adjudicating the issue involved in the
present writ petitions:
(i) Whether the policy decision of MPSC dated
28.10.2020 and 04.05.2020 deciding not to furnish
evaluated answer books for descriptive type papers to
candidate under normal circumstances bars the
candidate from perusing and inspecting their
respective evaluated answer script?
(ii) Whether the present case is covered by the decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Angesh
Kumar or Mradul Mishra?
[15] As already reproduced above, the original prayer in three RTI
applications are for furnishing marks scored by the candidates
(applicants) and certified copy of evaluated answer script of the subjects
appeared by the applicants. However, the prayers were rejected by SPIO
and first appellate authority of MPSC. State Information Commission by
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 15
2026:MNHC:136
common impugned judgment in three appeals filed by the RTI applicants,
moulded the relief and directed MPSC to allow RTI applicants to inspect
or peruse their evaluated answer scripts of the examination, i.e.,
MCSCCE, 2016 (2022). While issuing direction for allowing inspection of
answer script, State Information Commission has considered and
appreciated the earlier practice of MPSC of furnishing evaluated answer
script to the candidates; the fair practice adopted by High Court of
Manipur in furnishing certified copy of answer scripts to the candidate
appearing for Judicial Services Examination; the pendency of the writ
petition challenging the policy decision of MPSC not to furnish evaluated
answer script, the State Information Commission was compelled to pass
impugned order in order to uphold transparency in the public examination
of such important post. The policy decisions dated 28.10.2020 and
04.05.2022 of the Full Commission Meeting of MPSC decided not to
furnish evaluated answer scripts of descriptive type paper to the
candidate under the normal circumstances; but the same does not bar
inspection of their respective evaluated answer script to the candidates
alone. Since the policy decisions are challenged before this Court and
pending for adjudication before a Division Bench, this Court has refrained
from expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. This will take care
the submission of MPSC that judicial propriety demands this Court
refraining from expressing any opinion on the policy decision of MPSC
not to furnish evaluated answer script. This Court only expresses an
opinion on the fact that mere perusal of the policy decision does not bar
the candidates from inspection of their respective evaluated answer
scripts of the examination appeared by them. It is made clear that this
Court does not examine the legality of the policy decision and does not
express any opinion on merit.
[16] The next issue is whether the direction of State Information
Commission directing MPSC to allow RTI applicants to inspect their
evaluated answer script is barred by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 16
2026:MNHC:136
Court in the case of Angesh Kumar (supra). This Court has gone through
the decision of Angesh Kumar‘s case. The RTI applications in Angesh
Kumar‘s case is for detail of raw and scale marks and cut off marks for
every subject, scaling methodology and model answer complete result of
the candidate so far. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rejected the same that disclosing raw marks will affect the integrity and
confidential involved in such examination. The Hon’ble Court was of the
view that furnishing raw marks will cause problems and affect the
examination procedural and, in the circumstances, the applications were
rejected. However, liberty was given to RTI applicants to approach
appropriate forum that information sought by them will not compromise
the integrity of the examination. In the present cases, even though the
original prayer is for certified copy of evaluated marks (raw mark was
never prayed for by the RTI applicants herein), the State Information
Commission moulded the relief, on the basis of oral submissions made
during the course of hearing, to allow them to inspect their respective
evaluated answer script for the subjects appeared by them. In the
circumstances, the direction was issued to MPSC to allow RTI applicants
to inspect their evaluated answer script for the papers appeared by them.
[17] This Court is of the view that the factual matrix of Angesh
Kumar (supra) will not be applicable in the present case, more
particularly, after granting alternative oral plea of allowing to inspect
answer scripts. As already held and observed above, the policy decision
of MPSC does not bar inspection of evaluated answer script by the
candidate. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mradul Mishra (supra) will be applicable in the present case. After
considering the catena of cases including Angesh Kumar and Aditya
Bandopadhyay, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that allowing the candidate
to inspect their evaluated answer script will be in the interest of
transparency and will not violate any public interest.
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 17
2026:MNHC:136
[18] This Court is of the view that the decision of Mradul Mishra
will be applicable and decision of Angesh Kumar will not be relevant to
the fact of the present case. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are
dismissed and MPSC is directed to comply the direction of State
Information Commission vide impugned order dated 28.04.2023 in
Appeal Case Nos. 16, 19 & 22 of 2023 within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are to bear their own cost.
[19] Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Secretary, MPSC for necessary compliance.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2026.07.21
MARING 16:55:54 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 474 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 475 of 2023 with
WP(C) No. 476 of 2023 Page 18
