Rajveer Singh and others v. State of Uttarakhand & another

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 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

18.07.2024 inviting application for recruitment to the post of Additional Personal Secretary the Government Secretariat, Dehradun and the Uttarakhand Public Service 3 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

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 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 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 9) The petitioners therefore assert that they were satisfied with their performance 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Satya1 and the Rajasthan High Court in Ravindra Sharma Vs Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court2. 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 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 Bandopadhyay3, 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